I am a criminal attorney practicing in Colorado. I used to debate in high school, I went to Dow High in Midland, MI. I exclusively did policy debate.

I judged in college but have not judged a round since. I don't know anything about the topic this year. Literally nothing. You are going to have to go slowly and explain a lot.

I would really like it if everyone had their cameras on.

I need weighing - tell me why I should vote for you and why your world is better than your opponents.

T -

I really liked T when I was in debate and I think good debates where the interpretation or counterinterpretation provides a meaningful definition of the topic are great. I do need standards and voters, too, but I need the whole shell to be developed and extended.

DAs -

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

CPs -

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

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

Ks / K Affs -

Probably not the best idea to run high-level Ks in front of me, especially if you don't want to explain the basic terminology.

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

Framework + Theory -

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

Case -

I love when case issues are included in the debate, because it creates a mix of offense and defense that I much prefer to straight offense. I think using your off strategically goes under-rated a lot of the times. I love a good case debate.

Misc. -

I don't really like when the 1NC has about 7 off case only for most of them to be dropped by the 2NR because the neg is going for whatever their opponent drops. These often overlap, so please make sure your negative case is clear, substantive, and (mostly) cohesive.

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

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

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

I've taught and coached debate for 22 years, as well as taught at SDI. I've had multiple Michigan state novice champions. As a judge in general, I am tabula rasa.

On the novice level, I am looking for clash, and understanding of the arguments that you are running. I am open to any type of argument, including T, CPs, and Ks, as long as you can articulate what you are reading. Framework is crucial when running Ks. I am open to tag-teaming in CX, as long as you don't dominate your partner. I expect novices to divide the block, and to narrow down their arguments in the rebuttals. If you go for T in the 2NR, it should be the only thing you are going for. I do not read speech documents online, I flow on paper; if an argument is not articulated in the round, I will not intervene by reading it off the computer. If it's not on my flow, it won't be evaluated in the round. I can handle speed, as long as it is delivered with clarity. If not, I will say 'clear' twice, after that, I will stop flowing. The affirmative must extend case each speech if they expect me to vote on it at the end of the round. I am looking for good weighing of the affirmative advantages over the neg disadvantages. I like to hear arguments on timeframe, probability, and magnitude during the rebuttals.

Background

Debated a year for Petoskey

MSU 2018, currently debating

Email Chain

Please use one and put me on it: waynec5119@gmail.com

Email>Pocketbox but I won't be bitter.

Clipping

Seems to be a problem. If you do it and if I catch you, then I will drop you. 

Pre-round synopsis

I don't think anything in my paradigm deviates from the norm enough for you to spend pre-round prep reading it. I could be wrong. 

You should debate what you are best at. I’ve voted for every genre of argument. There are some arguments my record seems to favor, but I don't think it's usually significant enough to justify a change in your strategy. 

I think the primary purpose of debate is and should be to learn, research, and make reasoned arguments about a contested resolution. As such, I try to defer to what is actually debated and often vote against what I think is true. 

Other predispositions written below are thoughts I have about arguments in the abstract. That is all it is and sometimes it changes faster than this page gets edited. I think it's pretty reliable though. 

Topicality

I’ve done some preseason research on the topic and judged some debates, but I don’t have a strong normative predisposition about what the topic should look like. If you want to win on topicality, you should use the opportunity to craft that vision for me. “Core of the topic” cues are not something that will click as well with me because I don’t have a strong vision of what that should be/is.

K Affs/FW

Affs should have, at least, some sort of fundamental relationship to the topic. 

I'm not sure if fairness is an intrinsic good. 

I don't see a strong connection between debating a topical plan and producing activism or better activism. I'm more amenable to predictable limits arguments, and the education that those limits are more likely to consistently produce I do think is an intrinsic good.  

I think I vote aff when the 2NR goes for FW >60% of the time. This isn’t because I dislike FW, but because a lot of the time the aff has a set of impact-turns to FW that they win the technical debate on. I think that a good defense of why the neg’s interp doesn’t preclude the themes of the aff coupled with impact calculus can remedy that.  

Competing methodologies is persuasive... I think the aff getting to apply traditional standards of competition into K debate makes it very difficult to be negative. 

Kritiks

I’m really frustrated with some of Michigan’s reliance of super generic kritiks that rely on links of omission or really non-central assumptions of the aff in order to win. I don’t hate all kritik debates…. I don’t think… I just would prefer it if the debates were more case-specific. 

Case Debates

Are something that Michigan debate needs more of— even if you debate kritikally. A lot of affirmatives’ internal links don’t stand to scrutiny and smart analytical presses early on go a long way and increase your speaker points. 

Theory/CPs

Unless it’s perf con and/or conditionality, it’s almost always a reason to reject the argument. Process/agent/condition counterplans are probably bad. PICs I’m down with if they exclude large enough portions of the aff such that the aff should seem to have to defend them. Heavily neg on conditionality. I lean more neg than I otherwise would on all theory questions if it's a new aff or if it is not a new aff but is still undisclosed (that last bit is more Michigan-specific). 

Presumption

Is towards less change 

Background: So I debated at H.H. Dow for 3 years and just recently started with coaching with the team. Fun Fun. I debated on a Varsity varsity level so most things that you run I will probably be able to understand. I know some of the topic due to me going to tournaments but I'm not as familiar with all of the cases and what they do, or literally any of the abbreviations, so some explanation during round would be much appreciated. :). Pokemon, Mtg, Dota, LoL, Anime... Love it all.

Truth/Tech: Basically I prefer tech. Its how I was taught to debate and so its likely that I will evaluate the round in that way. However, don't be discouraged from running anything in the Truth realm. Just because i prefer tech does NOT mean that I won't evaluate or look to during round or while making the decision. I.E. I'll probably disagree with Racism/Sexism/etc. good. Duh. 

T: T was like my favorite argument but it seems to be a bit less common this year. Just because its my favorite dont feel like you have to run it, especially because if you don't do enough work on it then it really wasn't worth running anyway. To win the T-flow for me you have to win the top, not the bottom (Although winning both wont hurt (:  ). I'm totally fine with Extra/Effects and K of T's, but if you can't articulate it then I probably wont vote on it. I don't think Potential Abuse is a voter and I also won't vote on an RVI.

Case Stuff: Do a good job on your case. Your strongest cards are in your 1AC so use them to your advantage. Don't drop it until the 2AR or I'll cry. The neg team should also put some stuff on case. The 1AC is their best cards so prove to me that its a bad idea. Non-Plan Text Cases are fine with me. Make sure I know your stance/advocacy at the end of the round or I won't vote for you.

K: I like hearing K arguments, when articulated well. If you can't tell me or the other team what the K is or how the Alt works then very low chance I'll vote on it. Same with perms for the Aff. I'm not super familiar with a lot of the authors but I know the thesis of most K arguments, just let me know what the K is all about. That's more important to me. 1 conditional CP and K is about my limit, if not then theory is fine (weigh the impacts on theory dont just say fairness and education.)

CP: Counterplans are cool. It needs to have some sort of netbenefit or a super solid reason that its strictly better than the aff. Aff needs to do the opposite and run/extend perms and explain why the CP is worse or not mutually exclusive to the Aff case. 1 conditional CP and K is about my limit, if not then theory is fine (weigh the impacts on theory dont just say fairness and education.)

DA: Run them. I think that DA's are often underused and actually can have a lot of weight if you do some impact calc. Spend time arguing the Uniqueness and the Link because just impact weighing is not enough to answer it. DA turns case arguments are super cool and should be run. 

Framework: I would like some form of framework argument when it comes to K's especially (other arguments too, but especially on K's). Tell me why evaluating the round in your framwork is better and why I should vote that way. 

Theory: Running theory just as a time and strat skew is super lame. Actually impact the theory in the round and tell me why the Theory argument is important and how they violate the theory that you're running.

Misc.: -CX: Be nice. I can tell you that if you're rude your speaks will definitely go down. Be nice to the other team, look at me, and ask relevent questions. Tagteaming is fine but dont take over your partners CX

          -Attitude: be nice, not rude, dont worry, be happy, dont be nervous, you're probably doing fine

          -Speaks: being nice and humor go a long way, and if your arguments are good they will also go up.

          -Flashing: if it takes longer than like a minute or so I'll probably start/take off some preptime. However, tell me if you have a tech issue and I will understand

          - Neg Block: shouldnt have to be said but for my sanity split the block. 

          - Spreading: I'm fine with speed, be sure you're clear. If I dont hear it, it's not getting flowed.

          - Cheating: don't, lol. Stealing prep is cheating, so is clipping cards, etc. If the other team accuses you I'll have them bring evidence. If you're caught, you lose and get the worst speaker points possible. If you aren't caught then they get reduced speaks and you probably get the round. There's no need for false accusations. 

Feel free to ask me any questions about arguments, tell me about your teams policy on an issue, special stuff about your aff or about you. I won't bite, if you're confused after a decision or have questions about what you could've done better then ask right after the round or whenever you see me. Happy to help. 

She/her.

My name is pronounced Ka-trail not Ka-trel.

I am a graduate from Wayne State and I debated throughout HS and college.

I am open to all forms of debate. To be transparent, I was a policy debater throughout my years of competing. All arguments/methods being presented have to be well explained and impacted out for me to be persuaded; if I find myself asking "why?" to your arguments then you have not explained/impacted it out. I'm not going to vote on anything that I don't understand.

Generally I hated debating theory and didn't find it convincing unless there was clear in-round abuse (unfair, education, ect.). Not to say I won't vote on it, but it's probably an uphill battle. This doesn't mean don't include theory in your strategies. Debate is fun to me because of strategy, not the type of arguments. So, you can utilize theory to bolster other arguments/time skew.

If you want higher speaks then I want to reiterate how much I love a good strat in debate. Make flows connect. Use weird arguments from one flow to take out your opponents' arguments, connect the dots, scrap flows to save time, use impact calculus, etc. Anyone can cut decent cards (except probably me) or read blocks from last year so do the cool stuff.

Framework is fine.

I don't really have any strong feelings about arguments or styles besides the obvi:
1. I don't vote for offensive arguments - any racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. is going to get you an automatic L
2. I will dock your speaks for obnoxious behavior towards your opponents (which is ironic given my behavior in college debate) ...unless it's funny...which I find most HS debaters not to be so you have been warned

you can contact me at katrail14@gmail.com

• I started debating for Dow High School in 2007 and debated for four years. Since the I have coached and judged for Dow. After high school, I went to Central Michigan University and did not debate there.

• I’m not going to disregard any type or specific argument just because I don’t like or agree with it. But in order to win an argument or have me consider it in my BOD, you have to be able to adequately explain and understand the argument. For example, don’t run a K if you don’t understand the K completely.

• If you have a topicality flow, you need to be able to win both the top and bottom of the flow. If you just read me a definition and violation, but no voters in the shell, I’m not going to vote for it.

• Tag teaming in cross-ex is okay with me, as long as it isn’t excessive. Your partner should be able to answer some questions on the arguments that you are running, without you answering every question for them. If you have questions that you want your partner to ask, write them down. But if needed, it’s okay by me.

• I’m not a huge fan of performance affs, I want to actually talk about and listen to the debate topic for the year. I’m all for teams branching out and running these arguments, but it’s going to need to be very well articulated and have excellent framework in the round telling me where and why to vote for you.

• Framework in general is really great to have. Weighing the round at the end is always going to be beneficial for you, since it eliminates the need for me to blindly judge the round by myself at the end. Impact calc is always great. Weighing your framework (why I should prefer yours).

• Always feel free to ask me questions before the round starts if you need any further clarification!

Getting my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed at Wayne State, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Start slower and settle into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format. I rarely follow along with docs.

Non-important old man yelling at cloud moment: The 1ac is an opportunity for free speaker points and sets the tone for the debate, a lot of people sound like they don't practice reading it.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate offense in a debate generally wins my ballot. This is universally true for all argument styles and debate formats. I am very flow dependent. Specifics listed below, but absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. Communication surrounding the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A great card that is undersold and not explained and applied may get my appreciation when you bring it to my attention in the post-round, but absent you directing me to the significance of that evidence or why I need to read it won't be important to my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the lengths many of my peers turn to the docs to verify claims that in my mind are just not being debated. If your arguing on the line by line in no way questions the other team's characterization of evidence, I will never go on a fact finding mission.

I expect debater's to make relevant issues on evidence known in the debate.

Debater's should answer arguments.

You don't get to walk-back win conditions you establish that are conceded.

Thoughts on framework:

Full transparency I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a debater as a one-off position, and can be compelled that there should be some limit on the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I am also highly sympathetic given my personal pedagogical and research interests as a scholar of alternative interpretations of the resolution for the purposes of interdisciplinary/undisciplined debates. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. In my mind a counter interpretation provides a useful avenue for resolving both sides offense and is often a place where I wish the negative invested more time in the block and 2nr.

That being said, I have been persuaded by affirmative teams who impact turn framework without a counter interpretation. Iterations of this argument which have been persuasive to me in the past include critiques of predictability as a means to actualize clash, critiques of fiats epistemic centrality to clash/fairness/education, arguments which emphasize styles of play over notions of fairness for the game, as well as impact turning the rhetorical performance of framework.

A frequent line in decisions I vote aff on framework, "I think the negative is winning a link on limits explosion, but has underdeveloped the internal link between limits to clash/fairness/epistemic skills as an impact, and furthermore that impact's relationship to the way the aff has framed insert X DA or X impact from the 2ac overview on case is never once articulated". I'm a big believer in if you want to say T/framework is engagement you should actually engage the language and impacts the aff has presented, I will not fill in these connections for you because you say "praxis or debate is key to activism".

Teams over-emphasize the TVA without fully developing the argument. A core dilemma for the negative in round's I judge is the TVA's interaction with affirmative themes, performances, and theories remain superficial and surface level at best. Even when a great piece of evidence is read by the negative, it is an error in execution for the negative to rely on the judge to resolve these connections. My threshold for the TVA being "sufficient" is often higher then my peers. Given the value of the TVA as a way to resolve affirmative offense it is a spot where I think the negative must dig deep(ala Jeff Probst from Survivor) to put themselves ahead in a debate. There are many ways the negative can do this effectively, but all require a more thorough incorporation of the TVA from the onset of your strategy. It's bad form and a missed opportunity when the negative refuses to give an example/or doesn't know of a TVA in C-X of the 1nc. I'm a believer that there is a benefit in the negative block introducing other TVAs in the negative block, The 2nc should tie TVA's to performances, impact arguments, and theories of the 1ac. Saying you could have talked about X thing as a performance instead often falls flat. Do research pre-round or pre-tournament into the artefacts of the 1ac, be creative, you can incorporate them I believe in you.

I am also not a particularly good judge for negative impact explanations which rely on the assumption that the values of research/clash/fairness/iteration are inherent/exclusive benefits of a limited model. The negative often debates in front of me operating from the assumption the aff will win none of their offense or has abandoned these values in their entirety, this is both a bad move and often just a blatant mischaracterization of aff debating. An example with iterative testing. A premise which is hard to dislodge me from: all research is iterative, full-stop. Even when the aff has no counter interpretation, their research practices and argumentative styles are iterative because they build upon previously written research and arguments. This means arguments like iterative testing require more specificity in their explanation. The framing of "Only the negative model allows room for teams to refine arguments to third and fourth level" often rings hollow because it is more descriptive of the strategic incentives to develop arguments over the course of a season (which likely exist in any research activity), and not describe the actual benefit of the style of iteration of your model. A more persuasive iteration impact to me focuses on the question of quality and utility of each models style of iteration, tending more to questions like: is there an insurgent/epistemic benefit to maximizing iteration of state based politics vs negative critique? Instead of saying "the aff always goes for the perm in K v K debates," delve into questions of how affirmative models might distort the capaciousness of K v K debate? Or shutdown debates that are meaningful in the literature through standards and practices of debate's offense/defense paradigm? Are there moments where the aff contradicts their model or counter interp performatively? What is the significance of these contradictions? Are there potentially negative effects of the aff model for subjectivity? All of this is really my way of pleading with you burn the blocks of your predecessor, make some new arguments, read a book, do something.

Creativity and negative argument development on framework has plateaued.

You all sound the same.

I will be extremely frustrated if you opt to go for framework over any argument that is clearly well-developed and clashes with the aff that they blow off. There are many rounds where the 2nr decision to go for framework shocks me given 1ar coverage. Don't include A+ material if you are not prepared to go for it.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

I miss straight impact turning and link turning strategies from aff teams.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to.

New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Ethics challenges brought up pertaining to fabrication or out of context evidence submitted into a round end the debate for me. If it is determined that the ev is fabricated or meaningfully out of context then the team who introduced the evidence receives a loss and the low end of my point scale.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

I did high school Policy debate with Kingsley Area Schools from 2010 - 2015 with Hahna Martinez as my coach. For two years after that I assisted in coaching the Kingsley High School team. I competed at Leagues in Northern Michigan and Tournaments in the south of the state. I have not competed since 2015, but I do judge Policy and LD tournaments on occasion.

There are no arguments I will not inherently go for. I try to be as tabula-rosa as I possibly can. If you can explain it to me, and explain why I should vote on it, it's as good as anything else in the round. I love nonconventional arguments, but do not assume I know the acronyms or jargon specific to your argument. The more unconventional or fringe the argument is, the more you will have to make sure it is sufficiently explained. If I can't understand it, I won't vote on it.

If you are going to use abuse as a voting issue (or reverse voting issue) please make sure you take the time to tell me exactly what is abusive in this specific round.

I really appreciate strong impact calculus in your rebuttals.

I am confident with speed, but make sure you give me a roadmap for your speech, you are signposting as you go, and that you slow down and make your tags extra clear. Only go fast if you can be clear. If I can't understand you I will let you know by saying "clear."

I have a general understanding of this year's topic because nuclear war is a common impact, but I haven't spent a lot of time with the topic itself. Do not assume I know acronyms or specific arguments even if you've heard them all year.

Oakland University - PhD Applied Mathematics (2017)

U of M - Dearborn - BSE Computer Engineering & Engineering Mathematics (2011)

I debated for Groves High School for two years, U of M - Dearborn for one year, and I debated for U of M - Ann Arbor for one year. I have been coaching at Groves High School since August 2007, where I am currently Co-Director of Debate.

Please include me on the email chain: ryannierman@gmail.com

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. There needs to be specific explanations of your standards and why they are better than the aff's or vice versa. Why does one standard give a better internal link to education or fairness than another, etc?

CPs: I am willing to listen to any type of CP and multiple counterplans in the same round. I also try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. The overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: Sure. I enjoy a good kritik debate. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff. This may include reading new link scenarios in the block. There should also be a clear explanation of the impact with specific impact analysis. Spend some time on the alternative debate. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the world of the alternative look like? And finally, who does the alternative? What is my role as the judge? The neg should also isolate a clear f/w - why does methodology, ontology, reps, discourse, etc. come first?

Theory: I don't lean any particular way on the theory debate. For me, a theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Finally, there should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am certainly willing to listen to your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

You should read rehighlightings.

Don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications.

Have fun!

Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com

I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School for four years, debated for 3 years at MSU, and currently coach at Groves.

Topicality: I’m not opposed to voting on T, but rereading T shells is insufficient. There needs to be substantial work on the interpretations debate from both teams, in addition to the standards and voters debate, i.e. education and fairness. As long as the aff is reasonably topical and it is proven so, T is probably not a voter. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, go for only T, and do so for all 5 minutes.

Counterplans: Any type of counterplan is fine; however, if it is abusive, do not leave it for me to decide this, make these arguments.

Disads: Any type of DA is fine. A generic link in the 1NC is okay, but I think that throughout the block the evidence should be link specific. When extending the DA in the block, an overview is a must. The first few words I should here on the DA flow is “DA outweighs and turns case for X and Y reasons.”

Kritiks: I will vote on the K, but I often find that in the K rounds people undercover the alternative debate. When getting to this part of the K, explain what the world of the alternative would look like, who does the alternative, if the aff can function in this world, etc. I am well versed in psychoanalytic literature i.e. Zizek and Lacan and I do know the basis of a plethora of other Ks. This being said, I should learn about the argumentation in the round through your explanation and extrapolation of the authors ideas; not use what I know about philosophy and philosophers or what like to read in my free time. Read specific links in the block and refrain from silly links of omission.

Theory: I am not opposed to voting on theory, but it would make my life a lot easier if it didn’t come down to this. This is not because I dislike the theory debate rather I just believe that it is hard to have an actual educational and clear theory debate from each side of the debate. Now, this said, if a theory argument is dropped, i.e. conditionality bad, by all means, go for it!

Performance: An interesting and unique type of debate that should still relate to the resolution. As long as there is substantive and legitimate argumentation through your rapping or dancing and whatever else you can come up with, I am willing to vote on it. Even if you are rapping, I would prefer to have a plan text to start.

*As technology is vital in our life, many of us have switched toward paperless debate. I do not use prep for flashing, because I have also debated both off of paper and paperlessly in debate and I understand that technology can sometimes be your opponent in the round, rather than the other team. I am being a nice and fair judge in doing this, so please do not abuse this by stealing prep, because I will most likely notice and take away that stolen prep.

FAQs: Speed – I’m okay with speed as long as you are clear!
Tag teaming - I’m okay with it as long as it’s not excessive.

Things not to do in rounds I’m judging: go for RVIs, go for everything in the 2NR, and be mean. Believe it or not, there is a distinction between being confident and having ethos vs. being rude and obnoxious when you don’t have the right to be.

Daniel Oleynik

Experience: I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School (2011-2015), debated for 1.5 years at MSU, and currently a graduate student at UCF studying physics.

Admittedly, it's been a while since I've participated in the debate community (Tabroom has me last judge in 2017) so I'm a bit rusty. However, everything under this introduction should still be accurate. As long as you explain your arguments and debate well, there should be no problem.

COVID-era Disclaimer: With everything being online, I feel its's pertinent to mention I am hard-of-hearing, and wear hearing aids, and that's how I'll hear you (They act as headphones, so all sound goes through them). I will be fine, and I've both debated and judged at the national level, but do with this information what you'd like.

Pre-round

• I’m a fan of all arguments and there’s nothing I won’t vote on. On that note, I’m a large fan on Ks and non-traditional arguments, though I don’t mind a good T debate every now and then.

• I see too many teams doing tagline extensions of cards and think that means they extended the warrants as well, if you want to make a good argument, don’t just extend the card, but make some warranted analysis as well.

• Use Cross-Ex well, but there’s a brightline between a sassy C/X and a rude one.

• Analytics are pretty under-used as arguments, a good analytic can beat evidence a good amount of time

• I don’t take prep for flashing

• Tag-teaming is fine, just don’t let it get abusive or excessive.

• Having debated for Groves, both JL and Ryan influenced me in the opinion of tech vs. truth. I usually prefer tech debates, and will vote on that, but I can be persuaded truth debates are better (though that takes techiness as well…) And if an argument is dropped or conceded, that argument gains full weight unless the team can give me a valid reason why not

• I’m a very clear judge, in the idea that, when speeches will be going, I’ll be making facial expressions and looks. If you see me making a confused look, either move on or provide more explanation for me to get it. If you see me making a pleased face, keep going.

Clipping Cards

Clipping cards is cheating, and any recorded act of it happening will be met with an L and reduced speaker points.

Bad Arguments

I’m not a fan of bad arguments, but at the same time, if a team loses it on because they failed to flow it, and doesn’t answer it throughout the whole speech, that’s on them more than me. To answer bad arguments, just say something along the lines of “this is silly” and move on.

Bad arguments include, but are not limited to: Time Cube CP/K, FIAT solves the link, Plan is bottom of the docket, any of the specification arguments that aren’t ASPEC.

Regarding the top, there are some arguments I will not vote on regardless of concessions or not: Racism/Sexism/Discrimination Good, Torture Good, and RVIs.

Being AFF

Make sure both the 2AC and the 1AR do effective line by line and don’t concede a negative argument.

Case debates are pretty nice, debating the effects of the plan are what the case debate should be about, if the debate becomes more about the impacts and less about the plan, something’s gone wrong.

I have a high threshold for allowing dropped arguments past the 1AR and doing work for the affirmative in pulling across impacts from the 2AC to the 2AR. If you can give me a reason why I should, I’ll look at it, otherwise, make sure 1AR does everything they need to.

Framework

As a former K debater, I’m not a fan of framework debates and I won’t be happy, but I’ll evaluate them the same as any other argument. As long as you win the flow, I see no reason you don’t win the debate.

Fairness and Educations are good, but they’re not specific reasons to vote one side or the other. You’ve got to impact both of them, and give me reasons why your fairness/education is better than the other teams, whether it be decision making, portable skills, ect.

Kritiks

Having read kritiks for most, if not all, of my varsity debate career I’m pretty familiar with most of the literature out there. In terms of authors.
COVID-Updates:

The only small update, is with time, I haven't interacted with these arguments as much. I love DnG and Butler still, but I don't know the "debate" version of them. In that regard, just move all down a rank. Really Familiar is now Familiar, Familiar is now Familiar-ish, ect.
________________

Really Familiar (these are arguments that I can not only follow jargon wise, but I’ll understand a lot of the arguments really well)

DnG, Zizek, Fanon, Lacan, Saldahna, Butler (grievability ethics)

Familiar (these are arguments I’m familiar with, but I’m not exactly perfect on, may need a little more explanation)

Wilderson, Agamben, Foucault, Puar, Heidegger, Butler (feminism)

Familiar-ish (these are arguments that I’m only slightly knowledgeable in, good amount of explanation will be needed)

Baudrillard, Negri, Nietzsche, Wendy Brown, Derrida, Antonio, Camus

Who? (these are arguments where I’ve heard of the person, or have a slight idea of their arguments, otherwise, a lot of explanation needed.)

Mignolo, Deloria, Hardt, (others I haven’t heard of…)

Quick side note: If you have an author, and you’re thinking I’ve never heard of ‘em, at least ask me before the round, I may have forgotten somebody.

Now that that’s out of the way, general idea of kritiks.

These are my favorite arguments and I really enjoy both debating and listening to them.

Notes for Aff

Read a perm

Watch out for arguments like Root Cause, Floating PIKs, Serial Policy Failure and Error Replication arguments, dropping these usually means game over for the aff.

The easiest, and weakest part of the Kritik is the alternative, make sure you try to take it out.

Notes for Neg

Use your link arguments well, they’re usually able to be independent reasons to vote neg.

No matter if I know the argument or the author, you should still explain what the Kritik does, explanation only helps you.

Specific links to the aff make it easier to win the Kritik, but are not necessary to win the Kritik.

Disads

I’m ok with them, don’t love them, don’t hate them.

On DAs, there’s usually three types of debaters I see.

1. They spend too much time on Link/Uniqueness/Internal Link and not enough time on impact analysis

2. They spend too much time explaining the impact and don’t bother doing any link/uniqueness work.

3. They explain all the parts of the Disad equally, with warranted analysis.

Be the third debater.

While I’m not a fan of politics, I like Case Specific DAs, really use these to your advantage and turn the case with them.

Don’t forget to do impact overviews: Mag, Probability, Timeframe, and why DA turns case.

CPs

Counterplans are fine, like with the DA, I’ll evaluate them. I don’t love them, don’t hate them.

Out of all counterplans, I think Process CPs are probably the best, while Agent CPs are my least favorite, but I’m always ready to hear theory arguments debating why I should/shouldn’t listen to either one.

If the counterplan, not including advantage, that relies on a possibility of resulting in the Aff instead of a 100% risk, I’ll evaluate with caution, and this will usually be my last-choice argument. Make sure there’s at least one argument that makes the case that the CP will result in the Aff.

I’ll listen to all theory arguments equally, but conditionality is usually is the most persuasive, especially if the Neg has more than 3 conditional advocacies.

I’m fine with PICs, but make sure you’re ready for theory arguments if they come up.

Topicality

Ironically enough, even as a K debater, I enjoy debating T. Not enough people know how to do it effectively, so a good topicality debate is pretty fun to watch.

If it’s conceded, I’ll default to reasonability and topicality is not a voter, make sure not to concede these.

If topicality is going to get developed, both sides should give examples of bad/absurd affs that one can read on the other’s interpretation.

SPECIFIC TO NON-PLAN AFFS - If debating topicality, or on that note framework, the negative should make sure to make a topical version of the plan. Affirmative should give at least one reason why the topical version doesn’t solve.

Non-Traditional Affs

I’m a fan of watching non-traditional arguments, especially with debate flooded with policy aff after policy aff.

Same with the Kritik, make sure to explain how your plan functions and any jargon that might be involved.

If I, as the judge, can’t understand how the plan solves the impacts or how the solvency mechanism operates because of a lack of bad explanation, I will default Neg to presumption. However, I have a high threshold for what constitutes a “bad explantion”

Aff - Read a role of the ballot, if the neg concedes it, you know have a much better chance of winning this debate.

Speaker Points

Humor is good, the more you can brighten up a judge’s mood, the better.

A lot of it will rely on good ethos moments and how you do on the flow. If you can keep up and not drop/concede key arguments, it’ll go better for you.

Don’t be offensive/rude, this shouldn’t have to be said…

I know that speaks matter, so if you want to know, ask me after the round individually and I’ll happily tell you what you got. It’s not that big of a deal to me.

Seem knowledgeable about the literature base that you’re reading and about the aff.

Specific things to up speaks
Related to humor: make me laugh

Bad puns, bad jokes, making fun of someone you think I know, all will probably make me laugh.

If you do something risky and it works, I’ll reward you.

Debate Background: I debated for four years at Petoskey High School, and I am currently a sophomore at University of Michigan; I debated at U of M my freshman year. I am more used to policy arguments, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on critical stuff, that just means you will have to explain it more depth.

Philosophy: I will vote on pretty much any argument, but you need to tell me what the role of the ballot is. I need to know how I should frame the debate in order to vote properly. If no one tells me what the role of the ballot is I will default to the team that I think debated the best. So tab.

Specific Arguments:

1) Theory- I generally think theory debates are boring, and either side should only go for theory when absolutely necessary. If it is argued well and has warrants I will vote on it, but I'm not a huge fan.

2) Kritiks- Kritiks are fine arguments, but make sure I understand it, and you understand it. At some point you will need to give me a coherent explanation of the K, and the alt. K affs are fine as well, but I will probably be inclined to vote neg on T if it is brought up and argued well. Other psuedo-kritikal arguments should just be explained well then I don't care if you run it. P.S. you have to win framework if it is brought up in order to win the K.

3) Counterplans- Counterplans are great. Have a net benefit, and win the perm debate and you will probably win the round. Delay, consult and other PICs of the like can be annoying, but like I said, just win the perm debate :)

4) Topicality- Don't go for topicality unless they completely drop it OR the plan REALLY isn't topical.

5) Disadvantages- Great. Do it. I will vote on it.

6) Case- Good clash on case makes me happy. A negative can't win on just case defense though for the most part. In that situation I usually would give some risk of solvency or some risk of the impacts, so have offense on case or a DA, CP or Alt on a K as well as case defense.

In round Conduct: Be respectful. Nothing irritates me more than when people are rude to their opponents, or yell at each other in cross-ex. This is a debate round not a middle school cafeteria.

Prep/speech Time: I will keep you speech and prep time, and my time counts, not yours. Also don't steal prep. That's not a cool thing to do. I don't take prep for flashing or emailing, but if I notice you steal prep time you will lose speaks.

CX: If you make an argument in CX you have to bring it up in a constructive or rebuttal speech in order for it to be weighed in the round. Good CX questions and answers = good speaks.

Speed: Speed is necessary in the way that policy debate has evolved, but make sure you are clear. If you aren't clear I won't yell at you, but I might not hear your argument to flow it, and if I don't flow the argument then it doesn't exist. It helps if you start a little slower than your top speed at the beginning of your first speech that way I can get used to your style. Another note: double breathing annoys me so much, try not to do it please and if you do don't be obnoxious about it.

Other: I'm generally tech over truth, BUT truth outweighs when both sides are similar technically. Also, if either side says something extremely inappropriate along the lines of racist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest etc. speech, then I will give that team VERY VERY low speaks. Be respectful and not a bigot, thanks. If you have any questions, just ask.       

·      I debated at Okemos High School in Okemos, MI. I have helped with the Okemos debate program since graduating in 2014. I currently attend Michigan State University and I am not debating in college. I’m a Neuroscience major and a Philosophy and Cognitive Science double minor.

·      I like T, but I want to see clash over definitions, voters and standards. Why is your definition better? Having a list of cases that would be topical and would not be based on your definition helps. Simply restating your standards and voters without clash isn’t good enough for me.

·      I like being told what to vote for and how I should make my decision.  I don’t want to be left to decide what matters in a round and what doesn’t, it’s also bad for you!

·      Speaker points are based on cross x heavily and substance of your speeches. Please be polite, there’s no reason to be rude, and it’s unprofessional. Tag teaming in cross x is perfectly fine, I would prefer it not be excessive.

·      Ks and CPs should be read slower, if you don’t want me to miss anything. I can handle spreading, but I can only write so fast, I consider myself in the middle regarding speed. There needs to be an alt to the k and that cannot be simply voting negative. 

·      If you’re asking if you can run _____, the answer usually yes. I’m reasonably familiar with the topic, but please explain your arguments.

·      Feel free to ask me question before the round.

I debated for three years in high school for Portage Northern, and currently debate for Michigan State.

I am, in general, fine with any kind of argument. There are a few things I like/you should know in regards to each kind of arguments.

Topicality: I am not, and have never been, particularly a fan of T. I really think that, for the most part, things like the caselist and generic cp/da links mitigate the vast majority of abuse on the part of the affirmative, and I would much rather listen to a debate about the substance of the affirmative rather than sit and listen to different interpretations of the resolution. I will still vote on topicality, but I'm really not going to like it.

Disads: I don't really have much to say here, beyond the need to stress strong impact work on the bottom of the flow for both the negative and the affirmative.

Counterplans: I love counterplans in all forms. I think that my threshold for general counterplan theory is very high, getting me to vote on PICS bad or Process bad is going to be an uphill battle. If the net benefit to the counterplan is not a disad, but rather a non-mutually exclusive part of the cp, I need enough analysis there to vote on the perm do both. I think that those kinds of net benefits need an impact of some kind, I'm not going to vote on a plan-inclusive counterplan just because the counterplan solves slightly better. For the affirmative, when it comes to perms, I'll only vote on perm do the cp or other perms that could be considered severance if you grammatically prove why that doesn't sever the 1AC.

Kritiks: In high school, I was more kritikal than I currently am. I will still vote on kritiks and kritikal affirmatives, and I think they are a massively important part of policy debate, but know that I may not be speccifically familiar with many forms of critical literature, especcially higher theory. Feel free to clarify before the round. I'm also not a fan of novices running kritiks until a bit later in the year.

Condo: I think that my preferred limit for the neg is two conditional advocacies. That doesn't mean I'll always vote you down on condo abuse if you run three, but I think it would be very hard for me to vote down a team for running two or less conditional advocacies.

Please make sense of your arguments and ask for a ballot. I want to do the least work possible as a judge to determine an rfd.

10+ years as a judge. Debate is a game among other things. At this point, I'm pretty soulless and I don't know what more to say than that. The rounds that I enjoy the most are well organized and the debaters attempt to inform clear decisions on how the game should be won.

Fine with all kinds of debate and arguments

David Zin

Debate Coach, Okemos High School

debate at okemosk12.net

Quick version: If you want to run it, justify it and win it and I'll go for it. I tend to think the resolution is the focus (rather than the plan), but have yet to see a high school round where that was a point with which anybody took issue or advantage. I like succinct tags, but there should be an explanation/warrant or evidence after them. I do pine for the days when debaters would at least say something like "next" when moving from one argument to another. If you run a critical argument, explain it--don't assume I understand the nuances or jargon of your theory. Similarly, the few critical debaters who have delivered succinct tags on their evidence to me have been well-rewarded. Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I can't flow your 55-70 word tag, and the parts I get might not be the parts you want. I think all four debaters are intelligent beings, so don't be rude to your opponent or your partner, and try not to make c-x a free-for-all, or an opportunity for you to mow over your partner. I like the final rebuttals to compare and evaluate, not just say "we beat on time-frame and magnitude"--give me some explanation, and don't assume you are winning everything on the flow. Anything else, just ask.

The longer version: I'm a dinosaur. I debated in college more than 30 years ago. I coached at Michigan State University for 5 years. I'm old enough I might have coached or debated your parents. I got back into debate because I wanted my children to learn debate.

That history is relevant because I am potentially neither as fast a flow as I used to be (rest assured, you needn't pretend the round is after-dinner speaking) and for years I did not kept pace with many of the argumentative developments that occurred. I know and understand a number of K's, but if you make the assumption I am intimately familiar with some aspect of of your K (especially if it is high theory or particularly esoteric), you may not like the results you get. Go for the idea/theme not the author (always more effective than simply saying Baudrillard or Zizek or Hartman or Sexton). If you like to use the word "subjectivity" a lot on your K argumentation, you might explain what you mean. Same thing for policy and K debaters alike when they like to argue "violence".

Default Perspective:

Having discussed my inadequacies as a judge, here is my default position for judging rounds: Absent other argumentation, I view the focus of the round as the resolution. The resolution may implicitly shrink to the affirmative if that is the only representation discussed. If I sign the ballot affirmative, I am generally voting to accept the resolution, and if the affirmative is the only representation, then it is as embodied by the affirmative. However, I like the debaters to essentially have free rein--making me somewhat tabula rosa. So if you prefer a more resolution focus rather than plan focus, I'm there. I also like cases that have essential content and theory elements (stock issues), but if one is missing or bad, the negative needs to bring it up and win it to win. I do generally view my role as a policy maker, in that I am trying to evaluate the merits of a policy that will be applied to the real world--but that evaluation is being done in a format that has strong gamelike aspects and strong "cognitive laboratory" aspects. A policymaker perspective does not preclude examining critical/epistemological questions...but ultimately when I do so, I feel it's still through some sort of policy making perspective (educational policy, social policy, or "am I thinking about this correctly" when considering my view on the policy question: if my epistemology is a geocentric universe and the plan wants to send a mission to Mars, do I have the right knowledge system to guarantee the rocket arrives in the right place). I will accept counter-intuitive arguments (e.g. extinction is good) and vote on them--although you will have to justify/win such an approach if it is challenged and in many cases there is a bit of a natural bias against such arguments.

I say "absent other argumentation" because if you want me to use another process, I all ears. I'm pretty open-minded about arguments (even counter-intuitive ones), so if you want to run something, either theoretical or substantive, justify it, argue it, and if you win it, I'll vote for it.

Weighing Arguments:

The biggest problem I observed when I did judge college rounds, and at the high school level, is that debates about how I should evaluate the round are often incomplete and/or muddled, such as justifying the use of some deontological criteria on utilitarian grounds. While such consequentialism is certainly an option in evaluating deontological positions, I struggle to see how I'm not ultimately just deciding a round on some utilitarian risk-based decision calculus like I would ordinarily use. I've had this statement in my philosophy for years and no one seems to understand it: if I reject cap, or the state, or racism, or violations of human rights, or whatever because it leads to extinction/war/whatever, am I really being deontological--or just letting you access extinction via a perspective (using utilitarian consequences to justify your impacts, and some strategy or rhetoric to simply exclude utilitarian impacts that might counter your position). That fine if that's why you want it, but I think it makes "reject every instance" quite difficult, since every instance probably has solvency issues and certainly creates some low internal link probabilities. If you do truly argue something deontologically, having some sort of hierarchy so I can see where the other team's impacts fit would be helpful--especially if they are arguing an deontological position as well. Applying your position might be helpful: think how you would reconcile the classic argument of "you can't have rights if you are dead, yet many have been willing to give their life for rights". Sorting out that statement does an awful lot for you in a deontology vs. utilitarianism round. Why is your argument the case for one or the other?

Given my hypothesis-testing tendencies, conditionality can be fine. However, as indicated above, by default I view the round as a policy-making choice. If you run three conditional counterplans, that's fine but I need to know what they are conditional upon or I don't know what policy I am voting for when I sign the ballot—or if I even need to evaluate them. I prefer, although almost never get it, that conditionality should be based on a substantive argument in the round, preferably a claim the other team made. Related to that, you can probably tell I'm not a fan of judge kick for condo. If you have it in 2NR, my perspective is that is your advocacy option...and if it isn't internally consistent, you may have problems. Similarly, if you are aff and your plan merely restates the resolution but your solvency evidence and position clearly are relying on something more nuanced (and obviously you don't have it in your plan), you make it difficult for me to give you a lot of solvency credibility if the neg is hitting you hard on it (if they aren't, well that's their poor choice and you get to skim by).

Theory and K's:

I can like both theory args, especially T, when the debate unfolds with real analysis, not a ton of 3-5 word tags that people rip through. Theory arguments (including T) can be very rewarding, and often are a place where the best debaters can show their skills. However, debaters often provide poorly developed arguments and the debate often lacks real analysis. I do not like theory arguments that eliminate ground for one side or the other, are patently abusive, or patently time sucks. I like theory arguments but want them treated well. Those who know me are aware I like a good T argument/debate more than most...I'm just complaining that I rarely see a good T debate.

I'm not a fan of K's, but they definitely have a place in debate. I will vote on one (and have voted for them numerous times) if two things happen: 1) I understand it and 2) you win it. That's a relatively low threshold, but if you babble author names, jargon, or have tags longer than most policy teams' plans, you make it much harder for me.

Style Stuff:

As for argument preferences, I'll vote on things that do not meet my criteria, although I dislike being put in the position of having to reconcile two incomprehensible positions. I'll vote on anything you can justify and win. If you want me in a specific paradigm, justify it and win that I should use it. I like a 2ar/2nr that ties up loose ends and evaluates (read: compares)--recognizing that they probably aren't winning everything on the flow.

I don't like to ask for cards after the round, or reviewing the evidence in pocketbox, etc. and will not ask for a card I couldn't understand because you were unintelligible. If there is a debate over what a card really says or signifies, or it seems to contain a nuance highlighted in the round that is worth checking, I may take a look at the evidence.

I traditionally rely on providing nonverbal feedback—if I'm not writing anything, or I'm looking at you with a confused expression, I'm probably not getting what you are saying for one reason or another.

Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute. If I missed something in your speech, that is your fault--either because you did not emphasize it adequately in the round or you were unintelligible. If you are a gasper, you'll probably get better points if you slow down a bit. I tend to dislike prompting on content, but keeping your partner on pace is fine. I'd prefer you ask/answer your own c-x questions. I like numbering and organization, even though much has apparently died. At this point, even hearing "next" when going to the next tag would be a breath of fresh air (especially when it isn't being read off of a block). Similarly, I'll reward you if you have clear tags that would fit on a bumper sticker I could read without tailgating. Humor is a highly successful way to improve your speaker points. If you are organized, intelligible and funny, the much-sought-after 30 is something I have given. I haven't given many, but that reflects the debaters I've heard, not some unreasonable predisposition or threshold.

If you have questions about anything not on here, just ask.