I debated policy at Omaha Westside from 2009-2012. This is my 5th year coaching at Millard North.

Policy Paradigm

My national circuit experience is largely with critical debate. I'm more familiar with the identity side of things than postmodern, but I've gotten to a point where I feel comfortable understanding the majority of explanations of high theory arguments, even if a detail is lost here or there.

I think debates should emphasize debating and clash. Therefore, I am not a good judge for clash avoidant strategies and mental gymnastic competitions that proliferate underdeveloped arguments.

I prefer a combination of evidence and analysis over evidence dumps. Application of arguments, direct responses and comparative analysis should start before the final speech in front of me.

RoBs are often arbitrary and self-serving. I like them when they function as a point of clash that is essentially impact comparison between competing political approaches, ideologies, methods, etc. I don't like them when people think they win because the other team "dropped" the RoB because they didn't have a competing text despite the other team being ahead on the substance of the debate (links, impacts, solvency, whatever). If that's the case I'll probably vote for the team winning the substance.

I do not vote on cheap shots. Arguments are at least a claim and a warrant.


Disads, CPs, Ks, T – Default to offense/defense within reason. Complete defense is possible but highly unlikely. Turns case arguments get away with too much because silly internal links and magic alternatives aren’t challenged.

I’ve been less active this year so I’m not familiar with the truth(ier) side of topic disads and affs. Spin supported by evidence will go far. This will be the most disorienting on T because case lists will just be random case names to me, so emphasizing the quality of cases and debates for x and y reason will be especially important.


Framework – 

Part A – General Thoughts

I have a slight aff side bias in the relatively few framework debates I’ve judged, but I think that has more to do with the average framework debater being conceptually behind the average k aff debater in framework debates than anything else. 

That being said, I think the neg block on framework is the most commonly mediocre block in debate. They’re overly scripted, non-responsive, full of blippy jargony arguments that aren’t contextualized to the aff, and the 2NCs and 2NRs are almost identical to the speeches given in other debates against wildly different critical affs. It’s about as bad as when less experienced teams are learning to run 1 off Ks and read essays worth of blocks while doing no contextualized analysis. 

I understand that framework is run to mitigate the neg prep pressure against the ballooning number of critical affs, but I think having somewhat specific case defense and adapting the block and 2NR direction according to the critical aff being faced is necessary. There's a lot of easily available quality evidence that is being underutilized.

I like critical affs, but framework can be necessary depending on team size, experience level and coaching expertise. The presence of framework also pressures critical affs to remain honest so they actually defend something worth debating. I think it’s a good argument when run well.

Part B – When I'm Judging

I think there are two main ways for the neg to collapse down when running framework. There’s the “policy-oriented debates produce skills necessary to anti-oppression politics, their form of debate does the opposite” 2NRs and the “debate is a game, limits explosion tanks predictability and denies core negative ground, competitive equity outweighs” 2NRs.

I think the former is more persuasive against affs that are heavily against state engagement, which makes a viable t version of the aff unlikely. Anti-state engagement affs also have access to sweeping impact turns that I think require mitigation outside of t version of the aff and ssd because they undermine competitive equity framing, which makes case defense and policy skills turns case arguments useful in the 2NR. 

I think the latter is better vs. more soft-left affs that aren’t particularly anti-state but instead advocate a consciousness shift or some jargony jazz as a prerequisite to effective state action. It’s too easy for those affs to win they don’t suspend state engagement and only make engagement better through reckoning with x messed up thing, which opens up more persuasive t version of the aff claims and reasons why ssd leaves enough space in the neg’s model of debate to heavily mitigate aff offense.

For me, figuring out in cross-x of the 1AC how the aff relates to the state is vital, as many 1ACs can be read either way.

Neg blocks should not drop the 2AC overview that lists disads and uses case to turn framework. This is equivalent to dropping the block’s disad turns case overview. Debaters can win without answering it but why would they put themselves in that position?

I think the neg would benefit from explaining the t version of the aff similar to a counterplan, explaining how it solves individual parts of the aff or overlaps with the area of scholarship and then using offense elsewhere on framework to outweigh the specific “solvency deficits.” 

LD Paradigm

I have little experience with national circuit LD. I’ve mostly judged locally. My national circuit experience in policy is mostly on the critical side, but I am more than comfortable with a good disad, cp case debate. 

I can recognize some LD jargon but I don’t know what they actually mean. I don’t know what skep-triggers are or the permissibility vs presumption debate, and so on. I’m also not familiar with a lot of the moral theory. That being said, I can flow, follow and evaluate coherent arguments. This means there will be a higher threshold to effective explanation because I won’t be able to fill in the blanks or conceptually complete arguments for debaters because I don’t know what the best version of the arguments they’re making are.

I default to offense/defense within reason.

I’ve noticed I have a slight neg side bias when judging LD. I think this is mostly due to 1ARs having trouble and/or 2ARs collapsing to new arguments or unjustifiably new spins on previous arguments. 1ARs seem inefficient on case, especially when dealing with low quality arguments.

Generally speaking, remember that overadapting is not a good idea. You do you and I'll try my best to keep up.

Speed - Yes. Slow down when reading a flurry of analytics and don’t sacrifice clarity.

Theory – I'm accustomed to theory being read to discourage shadiness that would prevent effective debate, not as a mental gymnastics competition to avoid clash and substance.

1AR and 2NR restarts sound as vacuous as paragraph theory. 

If evaluating a theory debate I’ll first look to whether fairness or education was determined as more important (or determine who won that debate is there was disagreement) then isolate each team’s links to it. Not all forms of education and fairness are created equal. Weigh critical vs policy education, topic specific education, cost-benefit analysis, structural in round fairness vs fairness in respect to oppression, etc. Some people would categorize those as just links to education or fairness. Regardless, invest time in them. Comparative analysis is everything. 

Critical – Cool. Lack of an effective explanation of the method is the most common mistake.

Experience

18th year in debate. Currently the Director of Debate at SF Roosevelt from South Dakota. Debated 4 years in high school doing traditional LD. Since then I have coached circuit and conservative policy and public forum debate.

Big things - quickly

-Novice: if you aren't prepared for any of the below then don't worry! Just do your thing and welcome to the most educational activity on the planet! Also no matter how unprepared you feel, I didn't know the rebuttal even existed in my first debate! Is this activity hard? Yes. But doing hard things will make everything else in your life easy. All the nerves, preparation, late nights, and beat downs against people whose ACT score blew mine out of the water prepared me for a life where everything was much easier. Stick with it and you'll thank me later! Half of college freshman drop out in their first year, but debaters finish college over 95% of the time - that is no accident!

-Warrants win. Turns win. Weighing wins. Offense wins. Yes I flow.

-Big believer in collapsing in the 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. Do not go for everything! Your first two speeches add up to 8 minutes and your last speech is 2. How do you expect to go for 8 minutes of argumentation in 2 minutes without sacrificing some serious quality?! Many have tried - all have failed.

-Evidence should be accurately applied throughout the entire debate. It is very annoying when you read 8 minutes of evidence and then never talk about it again. I could have been hanging out with my dogs.

-Quoted evidence is more credible than paraphrased evidence by quite a bit. Paraphrased evidence is more credible than analytics, but only by a little bit.

-I believe the activity is approaching the point where it should be the norm to send all the evidence you read over to your opponent, before your speech, rather than doing this inefficient 1 card at a time nonsense. Whatever you do, please be efficient and it won't be considered prep time.

-If you are at a TOC bid tournament and don't disclose on the wiki then you should consider me a solid 50/50 on voting for disclosure theory.

Small things - rant style

This event should be accessible to all--meaning please keep your rate of delivery in check. No... that does not mean you have to be painfully slow. In fact, you can go fast enough where a typical person would think to themselves "that person is speaking fast." That person, however, should not think to themselves "I can not understand them." 98% of PF debaters are within my expectation here--the 2% should know who you are. Both teams have the right to request their opponent to slow down if they are struggling to keep up. Debate should be for everyone and not just those who can afford debate camp and those who speak English as their first language. If both teams love fast debate, and everyone agrees to it, then let's go all out speed because I enjoy fast debate too (just give me a heads up).

Crossfire is less important to me than most--if something important happens, get it on the flow in your next speech. Grand crossfire is not an opportunity to bring in arguments you didn't get to in the summary. If it wasn't in the summary and the final focus, I probably won't vote on it. Yes, you should frontline in the 2nd rebuttal.

Public Forum time structures are probably not suitable for debating Kritiks with alternatives. However, debating ethics directly related to the topic and arguing it outweighs/should come first is good with me. If you're going the Kritikal route, you should have some fire links to the topic (my threshold is higher on that). Despite having extremely admirable goals and intentions, non-topical K's make this event less accessible and empirically do not make this space more inclusive - otherwise policy numbers would be thriving.

No plan texts or counterplan texts please (Note: a counterplan text is not saying 'another solution is better than the solution being presented by the resolution' -- that's just an argument and you should answer it...)

High threshold on theory. Despite being tech over truth 95+% of the time, I have limited tech expectations on theory since I don't want to punish students who couldn't afford debate camp to learn the technical aspects of theory. If something truly unfair happened in the debate, then go for it by arguing 1) we should have this norm and 2) you violated that norm. To beat theory argue it 1) shouldn't be a norm or 2) you didn't violate the rule or 3) we should have a different norm instead of the one you provided. If you argue theory every debate, I'm not the judge for you. It is a check on unfair debate practices, not a strategy to catch your opponent off guard. I believe I have voted on theory 2 times in the hundreds of rounds I've judged--I have yet to vote on theory in PF.

Random things:

-Link turns need to win a non-unique to be considered offense. You can win a debate with me by going for just this

-Post-dating is good, but you need a warrant for why the date difference matters

-Going for everything is a bad idea. In a typical debate, 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary should start the collapsing process. I agree with the coaches who call 'making choices' the most important skill in debate.

-I am a judge who sees most arguments in gray - not black and white. I struggle with most decisions and not because I didn't understand your arguments.

Finally, debate can be stressful--if you find yourself in an important debate with me as a judge, it might be a good idea to watch the following video. I may be stressed as well and watching it during prep time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZZkZPcxp_I

Questions? Just ask!

Last Updated 3/5/20

Background: I debated for three years at Millard West High School in Omaha, NE. I was a 2A/1N all three years, and I primarily ran soft left/middle of the road affs. I recently graduated from Columbia, and I currently judge most often for CDL.

I use she/her pronouns.

TL;DR:

• Do what you do best. I'm willing to vote on almost anything you put in front of me as long as it's executed well.
• Yes, I would like to be on the email chain - mcunliffe97@gmail.com. You should also feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions for me.
• Tech > truth, in most cases.
• A dropped argument is not a true argument without an impact and a warrant. I still need to know what the perm means even if the negative didn't respond.
• I will only read your evidence after the round if there is an indict of evidence that has not been resolved within the debate, or if the debate is muddled to the point that evidence quality is a deciding factor. I will always default to your analysis, and the criticisms you make of your opponent's evidence in round.
• Smart, well-applied historical examples and analytics > unexplained shallow cards
• K affs and Ks are totally okay with me - I am most likely to vote you up if you still provide some form of topic education and if you can clearly explain how your method or performance a) resolves at least some of the harms raised in the 1AC and b) is preferable to roleplaying as the USFG.
• I'm very amenable to framework, and I'm most persuaded by claims that stable stasis points are net better for debate, and that having to advocate for concrete action and engage with the state on the aff, even from an antagonistic position, is a good form of education.
• I think both K affs and framework usually suffer most from failing to get off their blocks and not specifically discussing the benefits/harms of the 1AC for debate.
• I won't vote for any argument that claims racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia are good. Making discriminatory comments toward your opponent is always an automatic loss and a talk with your coach and/or the head of the tournament.

Logistics:

• I don't take prep for flashing/sending the e-mail.
• I'm fine with speed, as long as you're clear. Please slow down a bit for theory and overviews - I don't need you to read them conversationally, but it's easier for me to flow if you're reading them at tag speed rather than card speed.
• Card clipping = 0 speaks for you and and an automatic loss. Video/audio evidence needs to be provided to me to prove any suspected card clipping. If a false accusation is made, the accusing team receives 0 speaks and an automatic loss.
• Please don't steal prep. I'll give you a warning once, and if I catch you after that, I'll start the timer without telling you.
• Tag team CX is fine, but speaks will be docked if one partner is speaking excessively over the other.
• Being sassy and/or aggressive is great. Being an asshole is not. It will show in your speaks and my obvious irritation with you during the RFD.
• If there are any other accommodations that I can make to help make the debate more comfortable or safe for you, please let me know. Debate should be more fun than it is stressful, and I am willing to do whatever I can to facilitate that. Feel free to reach out via e-mail if you don't feel comfortable telling me in front of opponents/observers/etc.

Specific Arguments

K affs

• I really like K affs when they're executed well. Two things are going to make me more likely to vote up your advocacy:
• 1) Be at least germane to the topic. I believe that part of the value of debate comes in exploring different topics from year to year, however you choose to do that. I'm willing to vote on affs that choose to ignore the topic if a well thought-out and well-defended defense of debate outside of the topic is provided, but I think it weakens your response to the negative's claims that their education and ground have been lost.
• 2) Advocate for a method or form of performance that resolves at least some of the harms you identify in the 1AC. I am frustrated by K affs that are able to diagnose problems in debate or American society but fail to provide any kind of mechanism to resolve any of those problems, and I am persuaded by claims that affs without any real method fail to create good ground or clash. Focus on the particular skills and education gained from acting as activists/scholars/artists and the ways that those benefits could not be gained from a USFG aff, and you're good with me.
• I'm generally not very persuaded by the idea that my ballot is going to start a movement, or that the results of this specific round are key to broader external social change.
• I only vote on role of the ballots if there's a clear reason given to me by the affirmative to prefer the ROTB to my default of voting for the team that debated best. Even if an ROTB is technically conceded, I think a fairly significant time investment in later speeches is still required to convince me that your framing of the ballot is preferable.
• Being aff vs. framework - I have no real predisposition in these debates. I think a lot of K affs suffer from being too general in their 2AC - the 1AC usually has very compelling anti-state arguments and specific defenses of the aff method, so the more your 2AC draws from the specifics of your 1AC and the less you rely on generic "state/roleplaying bad" args, the better off you are with me.
• If you attempt to perm framework in any way or claim that your aff will effect change on the state eventually, I need a specific explanation of what the aff does with regard to changing the state externally that could not be done internally with a plan.
• Performance of any kind is cool with me - I'm most impressed by teams that make their performance an integral part of the aff, and continue to incorporate it past the 1AC.

Framework

• "Ks/K affs are cheating and make people quit debate" forms of framework are not persuasive to me, and I am very persuaded by aff claims of silencing/exclusion against this argument.
• Framework as a methods debate (i.e. "advocating for the USFG is a better way to solve for the aff's impacts") is a way more interesting and persuasive argument for me. I really appreciate framework that is specifically tailored to the aff - creative TVAs, relevant historical examples, and making your framework specific to the current political climate are all good ways to get my ballot.
• I generally believe that the only terminal impacts to framework are fairness and education. Loss of ground is not an impact by itself - tell me what specific kinds of education are lost by allowing the aff in the 2NR and how those forms of education limit our ability to engage as citizens in the future.

Ks

• Totally down for them. I'm most familiar with neolib and identity-based Ks, particularly those to do with gender. I would say that in general high-theory philosophy is not my area of expertise, but I'm fine with hearing those kinds of arguments. No matter how much I know about what you're reading, I default to your analysis. I'm not here to fill in the gaps for you.
• I want to hear a K specific to the aff. Links like "they use the state" and links of omission are not compelling to me. I love hearing lines or cards of the 1AC referenced and very specific link articulations.
• Buzz words are not persuasive. Straight quoting a lot of your authors and their jargon is probably going to confuse me. Instead, slow down a bit in the block and give me an explanation of the thesis of the K in layperson terms. I am always super impressed by people who can translate exceptionally academic authors into something that's easy to understand and relevant in the context of the aff.

Topicality

• Treat T like a DA for me and it's great - ground is not an impact in and of itself. Instead, tell me what education is lost and why that education is critical to our development as debaters/future advocates for stuff. T version of the aff is great and should always be in the neg block if possible.
• I always prefer topicality arguments that are rooted in some kind of substantial in-round abuse and I think it makes it easier for the neg to win an impact in that case, but I'm open to any T argument that claims that the aff hurts debate in some way. I don't think that potential abuse is a voting issue.
• Ks of T are fine but I think they're stronger when you provide some kind of we meet or counter interp for how I should view the debate.

Theory

• I think theory is nearly always a reason to reject the argument and not the team, unless it's a condo argument or really significant abuse can be proven.
• I'm not a huge fan of blatantly conflicting advocacies. This does not make condo an automatic voter for me, and I think there are clever ways to show how on-face contradictory arguments can work together. However, I think it is a pretty lazy neg strategy, and it makes me much more sympathetic to the aff if they choose to perm or justify severing reps against one of your positions.
• If you want to go for theory in front of me, invest significant time in it in the later rebuttals (at least 3 and a half minutes in the last rebuttal), and get off your blocks. Make sure you're finding examples of abuse within the round, and, like with topicality, essentially treating it as a DA.

CPs

• I didn't run a ton of CPs in high school, so if it's highly technical or has a ton of planks, please take the time to explain any tricky stuff you want to do. Totally cool with them as long as they're explained well.
• Please slow down on your CP text so I actually know what you're advocating for.
• I'm not predisposed one way or the other about cheating CPs, but I can be persuaded by aff theory, especially if there's obvious in-round abuse.

DAs

• I'm fine with anything you want to do here. I really enjoy specific DAs, and I think the more generic you are, the easier it is for the aff to win. However, I think that even the most generic DAs can become specific if good link analysis and impact comparison is made between the aff and the DA.
• The more illogical your politics DA, the less I'm going to like it. Be knowledgeable, reference specific senators and representatives, understand and talk about the current political climate, and I'll be into it. Internal link chains are usually super weak for politics, and aff teams that exploit this, even just with analytics, have a way easier time against these arguments with me.

E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

**DISCLAIMER** IF YOU ASK MY PARADIGM BEFORE A ROUND -- BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS EVEN THOUGH I TOOK TIME TO WRITE IT -- YOU WILL MAKE ME ANGRY AT YOU. Feel free to ask specific questions regarding my paradigm before the round though :)

A few of my thoughts on PF debate:

1) Speed: I can keep up with speed, but please make sure to articulate yourself. If I can't understand the words you are saying at the pace you're saying them, then I can't flow. In addition, the speed at which you're talking at shouldn't interfere with your presentation. If I don’t flow it, it doesn’t exist. I will yell "slow" once, and then I'll just stop flowing.

2) Theory/Kritiks/Counterplans/Plans: In any capacity, these will = the L. If your strategy includes elements of this/you are unsure of what constitutes as theory/k/CP/plan, please ask before the round. If you don't ask and you run one of these arguments, this is on you and not on me.

3) Rebuttals: If you are speaking first, I'm fine with you spending all 4 minutes on opp case. If you are second speaker, you should defend your case in some capacity and briefly respond to args made on your case. At minimum, you must answer turns. If you speak second and don’t answer turns in rebuttal, you will almost certainly lose the round if your opponents go for those turns. This is not to say I think you need to go for everything in second rebuttal. I’m fine with you kicking arguments and thinking strategically during the round.

4) Summary/FF: I like clear voting issues. Summary and final focus should crystallize the round. Don't just do line-by-line. Also, if an argument isn't extended in both summary and FF, I won't vote on it.

5) Prep time/calling for cards: I won't take prep time if you call for cards and you're reviewing them. However, if you are working while you are looking for/reviewing cards, that IS prep and I will start the clock. I'm fine if you time your own prep, but know that I am also keeping time and my time is the official time.

6) How to win/lose/be upset with my ballot: Debate is a game. Evidence matters. Your crappy analytics don't hold as much weight for me as much as what the actual evidence says. If left to weigh an analytic against actual evidence, I default to the evidence every time. Also, provide analysis to the round -- AKA tell me what your evidence means. Racism/sexism/homophobia/xenophobia/anti-semitism/etc = immediate L with zero speaks. Be civil & polite. Shouting/condescension/insults will result in a reduction of speaker points. Speaking of speaker points, any Office references will bump up your speaks by .5. Something else you should know about me -- if I am left to weigh/figure out where you want me to vote on my own because you are not telling me what to evaluate, there's a good chance you won't like the RFD. You need to explain where you want me to vote and why. Clearly extend authors, clearly tell me voters, clearly tell me why you won those voters. CLARITY MATTERS. DISORGANIZED SPEECHES ARE BAD. If you are still reading this and are unsure of something, it is YOU JOB to ask me before the round. If you don't ask, that's on you.

7) Disclosure: I will disclose my decision after the round, unless specifically asked not to by the tournament. I don't mind being asked questions about my decision; I love helping people understand my thought process/increasing overall education [......that is what debate is about after all, right?] However if you argue with me after the round because you feel the need to try and change my decision, please know you have a -100% chance of changing my mind and a 100% chance that I change your speaker points to something that will take you out of the running for any speaker awards.

**In close rounds, I will call for all important cards extended in final focus. Your miscut is your fault, even if it wasn't mentioned in the debate.

Background:  Policy Debate (3 Years - 2013-2016) at Millard North High School; went to the ToC my senior year. I help out Minneapolis Washburn.

I'm most familiar with gender, colonialism, and flowing.

Email: lilyhock797@gmail.com 

General: Rounds on the 2016-2017 policy topic: 10

I'm interested in whatever you do best; debate is meant to be educational and necessitating you run/try to run what I "like" would corrupt that; I don't want to see you fumble something you're only running because I'm judging you. The more specifc and strategic you are, the higher your speaker points will be and the more I will be interested in the round.

I do not vote on tagline or author extensions - you need a warrant for every argument. I vote on what was said in the debate. If I call cards at the end of the round, I use it only to give advice during my RFD if the card was explained insufficiently or could be used better.

AFFs: I don't care what you do as long as you have a mechanism to resolve the harms of the 1AC throughout the entire debate. If there's been no mention of what the AFF does in each speech, I'll need a reason why I shouldn't vote NEG on presumption. So please, at least briefly explain the AFF.

Stay away from jargon or clearly explain it. If I can't understand what you're doing or what your AFF is saying it makes it easier for me to vote on things like fairness. If you are condescending while explaining your AFF in cross-ex you'll lose speaker points (My threshold for this is not low - but just a note please don't be rude about it). If someone asks multiple times to explain the same aspect - try answering different ways, it's not like the practice will hurt.

Framework: As a debater I hated it, but as a judge I think questions of how debate should operate are integral to debate itself. That being said:

1) I have a high threshold for voting on fairness unless the AFF cannot resolve its own impacts and/or has no relation to the topic. To win on fairness, I need a very clear internal link story with specific examples from the 1AC that prove the AFF uniquely increases the amount of abuse in debate.

2) I value education impacts the most when it comes to framework. Be specific to the AFF and explain how engaging the state would be necessary to resolve the harms of the 1AC. A lot of debaters on both sides like to pretend debate exists in a vacuum, so the strongest arguments are those that link state engagement to real world, historical, impacts. If ground is your internal link, analyze the educational benefits of your lost ground vs. the ground they offer.

3) Answer the AFF - simply saying framework is a procedural won't shortcirucit the AFF's offense usually - depending on the AFF.

Etiquette: Framework in a vaccuum is cool to me, but my problem is that it's implementation often becomes paternalistic or exclusionary. If I vote for framework - I am not voting that the AFF "should be kicked out of debate" but rather that it is ineffective in its current state. Remember that; I find it unacceptable to treat teams like they should not have access to debate because of what they run. Treating each other terribly/being rude in round does not make your arguments more convincing - that applies to everyone.

Topicality: If you're running more than one - make sure to have a case list that meet both definitions. If there are multiple interpretations for one term - comparative analysis will decide the debate for me.

Theory: Performative contradictions - I don't know if you'd put this under your theory argument umbrella, but I think this can become extrordinarily offensive if you don't nip it in the bud. PIC/PIK - This I evaluate on a line-by-line basis so make sure you don't only stick to your theory blocks if it becomes an issue. Condo - if you have a specific number of off-case that is not abusive, I need a reason that number is not arbitrary; my condo threshold is inversley proportional to the offcase run (if there are less off-case I have a higher threshold - the threshold lowers after 3 or 4).

Slow down on your theory block about 5% so I can flow each argument if they're super short.

For LD - theory is evaluated on a case by case basis.

Counterplans/DAs: Any are good. I think actor and conditions counterplans for the China Policy topic are good.

Kritiques: Kicking the alt is a little risky in front of me depending on how the debate goes down. If you kick the alt - you need to prove why the AFF is a unique increase in the impact to the link. I will vote on presumption if you have solvency turns and deficits specific to the AFF along with impact analysis.

Margo Johnson

Debated for four years at Blue Valley Southwest

Senior at the University of Kansas but am not debating. I judged a ton when I was a freshman and sophomore, but it's been a sec since I've judged and I know literally nothing about the 2019-2020 topic.

Speaker positions in high school: 2A/1N

Top level

1. Tech > truth

2. A dropped argument is a true argument only if it’s extended with a warrant.

3. Impact calc plays a large part of my decision.

4. Read a plan text and defend it.

5. Disclosure is good.

Topicality

Affs with a plan – I evaluate topicality under competing interpretations, but I can be persuaded by reasonability. I find limits the most persuasive standard. I think fairness is a real impact. The neg should have a case list and topical version of the aff, if possible. Most times I'd rather vote on a disad than topicality, and I don't think I'm the best judge for a super techy T debate, but if you're winning the flow and if the aff just isn't T I'm happy to vote on the argument.

Affs without a plan – I think affirmatives should defend a plan text with the United States federal government as the actor. I think the state is generally good. I think the state is redeemable. I don’t think reading structural violence impacts and defending the state are mutually exclusive. If your aff is contrary to anything aforementioned, I’m not the best judge for you. I’m easily persuaded by framework/T, especially topical version of the aff. That being said, I still will vote for an aff without a plan. If the neg does not win the framework/T flow on a tech level, I'll vote for the aff. However, in a debate where both teams are being competent, I'm more neg leaning on the argument. Easiest neg ballot is a combination of winning the state is good + topical version of the aff + no aff solvency + your interp. The roll of the ballot is to vote for the team who won the debate.

Counterplans

I like counterplans a lot, especially if they’re textually and functionally competitive and have a solvency advocate. Judge kick is fine. Solvency is not a net benefit to a CP. You need actual offense. In a CP+DA debate, I find myself almost always looking at the disad first and then I evaluate the CP. So if you've probably won the CP but you haven't won the disad, I will have a harder time voting for the CP.

Cool counterplans – advantage counterplans, executive CPs, states CPs

Bad counterplans – process CPs, consult CPs, delay CPs, word PICs

Questionable counterplans – PICs, international CPs

Theory

Theory is generally a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I guess the only exception to this is condo. I have a very high threshold for voting on condo if answered and think 3-4 conditional advocacies is fine. Sure, I'll evaluate no neg fiat. Cheap shots are cool.

Kritiks

I don't particularly prefer kritiks, but if you win the flow, I'll vote for them. I am not well versed in critical literature. I’m fine with neolib, security, imperialism/colonialism, and biopower debates, but past that you run the chance of losing me, and it'll be difficult for me to vote for any kritik but those listed above. I really don’t want to listen to an identity debate. And I really really don’t want to listen to any high theory debates like Deleuze or Baudrillard or psychoanalysis or anything like that like please no strike me now.

Aff – Weigh your aff! I’m usually persuaded that the aff outweighs and turns the kritik. As I mentioned, impact calc is really important. Make sure to answer K tricks because that is a place I will vote and voting on fiat is illusory will make me v sad. Also explain how your perm functions. If you’re going for perm do both, you need to explain how the plan and the alternative functions in the world of the affirmative. If I don’t know what your perm does, I can’t vote for it.

Neg – You need to have a clear link to the aff. Links to the topic and links of omission aren’t links. Links should be generated off the mandate of the plan or the plan’s advantages. I need to know what your alternative does. If you’re into using lots of fancy long words in your alt text but aren’t into explaining what that actually means, I will be more persuaded by no alt solvency. I hate do nothing alts. I think the best alts access institutions. Don't concede case in the 2NR. I most likely won't vote for you if you do that. Although I didn’t read kritiks on the neg often, I read soft left affs my senior year and wouldn’t consider myself a util hack.

K v K debate – No

Disads

DA+case and CP+DA debates are my favorites. I love politics. Turns case arguments are really important. Link shapes uniqueness. The aff should take advantage of the DA if the neg improperly kicks out of it.

Contact info: jmsle20@gmail.com

TL;DR just explain things well to me. Make sure things are explained clearly and cross-applied to the opponents arguments and I'll do my best to understand. After judging some national circuit debate rounds as well, I’ve realized I cannot keep up with the speed of the higher level national circuit so please aware of that and slow down. I may or may not tell you to slow down.

Speed: I think i'm ok with speed, thought after dowling i've realized not as good as i used to think. Overall somewhere around 7/10 on speed. that being said, if ur going to read a theory shell or something thats really blippy with lots of short claims,example FW, you're gonna need to slow down. If you go like many many really short blippy off, please go slow. Most other things im able to keep up well enough.

I used to be a CX debater for Millard North. I debated for 3 years as a identity/performance debater from 2013-2017 with one gap year. I coach on and off for the Millard North debate team as well.

Critical Arguments: I do have a bias towards critical arguments. While I do my best to not let this cloud my judgement it does happen. While I don't have a good understanding of many arguments here I do my best to have some kind of basis for most arguments. I do struggle more with postmodern literature so in terms of those just make sure everything is clear and explained well and avoid jargon if possible. It also helps if the argument has a material basis in the alternative. While theoretical alternatives are fine, if they don't have some kind of real world example then it's harder for me to vote for. tldr for critical stuff - i have an ok baseline about the mainstream args, just make sure u explain methods/alts/links etc etc well.

Critical Affs: I like critical affs, I ran one myself in HS. That being said, make sure you're doing the work against FW teams and other K teams to explain what offense exists and why I should vote aff and not just vote neg on SSD.

Plan text Affs: I did performance and identity args in HS so I am less familiar with nuances that come from classic plan text affs vs. x offcases as well as more technical arguments. Just make sure to explain arguments and analysis and I should be fine.

T/FW: I struggle to understand them unless there is clear abuse coming from the aff. I am starting to understand them better, however T and FW debates tend to be more blippy than not so just be sure to explain offense clearly. In terms of speed on the theory debates, be careful just spreading through ur entire theory shells and stuff in front of me cause i will probably miss a lot of the one liners that you end up spreading through especially if you end up not flashing the analytics

**Policy Philosophy**

Small update 12/7/2016

I officially hate T debates on this year's topic, specifically the QPQ/Not QPQ debate. Go for T at your own risk.

The rest Updated 10/28/2015

About me: I’ve been coaching policy since 2008. I was at Omaha-Westside 2008-2012, and Millard North 2012-Present.

The short version: I’ll evaluate the debate the way the debaters tell me to. I don’t think debate should be any one thing. The beauty of policy is that it’s constantly changing to suit the will of the debaters. I care significantly more about the educational outcomes of debate than pure gamesmanship. If you’re debating in a style that you’re passionate about (policy-making included), I’m a good judge for you so long as you can justify what you’re doing. Some of my teams run straight-up policy arguments, others don’t read plans.

The argument biases below aren’t set in stone. I try my best to evaluate the debate according to the arguments made in the round, not my predispositions.

Speed: I can flow whatever speed you toss at me as long as you’re clear. That being said, I’d prefer if you slowed down about 15% so that I have a little more time to process what you’re saying. Frankly, I enjoy debates more that are a little slower—but debates are about the debaters, so don’t pay too much attention to that.

If I can’t understand what you’re saying I’ll tell you to be clear once or twice. After that you're on your own.

Topicality: I'm probably not  the best judge for T if the aff is about a core controversy of the topic. 

I've generally voted neg on topicality in debates where the negative has provided a clear, limiting interpretation of the topic. The aff was in good shape when they gave warrants behind breadth over depth and/or talked about the quality of the ground the differing limits provide (limits should be about the quantity and quality of cases). I default to reasonability if neither side says a word about it, but I defer to the flow and usually end up deciding based on competing interpretations.

Theory: It’s your burden to prove rejecting the argument doesn’t solve your objections. You'll have a tough time convincing me to vote on dropped cheap shots. Limited conditionality, topical CPs, and functional PICs are probably good. Counterplans that include the possibility of doing the entire plan are probably bad.

Kritiks: Do your thing. I’m pretty well informed on most arguments, but you can’t be sure I know your personal favorite. Specificity makes for better debating.

DAs/CPs: Sure, go for it. I’m getting less thrilled by politics debates as time goes on, but I’ll evaluate it fairly. Case-specific PIC/DA combos are probably my favorite strategies.

Framework: Mike Baxter-Kauf says it best: "There are really 2 different arguments that people lump under the tag “framework.” One is a question of how we should think in response to a given question: these are defenses of pragmatism, realism, empiricism, etc. These are legitimate questions which are a focus of any intelligent response to a criticism. The other is “they ran an argument with big words so we should get to not answer it and still win.” I hate this argument ,like whoa, do I hate this argument. Don’t get me wrong, I vote for it, but I hate doing it and the the threshold for rejecting it is pretty low. You are way better off answering the thesis of the argument and defending your approach to whatever the question is (YOUR epistemology, YOUR ontology, etc.)"

No Plan/Alternative Styles: I'm friendly to this when it's not used as a method of avoiding clash. If you’re passionate about what you’re doing, I want to watch you debate. If you try to be shifty and 'no link' out of positions that clearly link to your advocacy, don't be surprised when I give the other team more credibility on their framework arguments. It will also probably hurt your speaker points. That being said, I am increasingly wary of how intellectually limiting traditional interpretations of the resolution are. If you're germane to the topic and present a debatable advocacy, I'm interested in what you have to say.

Other stuff:

When I read evidence after the round, it's generally to get more context for the arguments made in the debate. I won’t give you credit for warrants that weren’t explained in-round.

I definitely value 'spin' over evidence.

I won’t judge-kick a counterplan and evaluate the status quo unless you explicitly make that an argument in the round.

Clipping cards is a serious offense. Get caught and you’ll lose the round with zero speaks.

I'm a high school debater at the Barstow school, I have been debating for 3 years now. 

Aff

I like it when the Aff team has good impacts that they explain and extend through the whole debate.

I don't mind a K Aff as long as you explain it and make sure that the Neg team and I understand what is going on.

Neg

I don't mind a K as long as you explain it and make sure that the Aff team and I understand what is going on.

When you are explaining your impacts make sure you make the links and the impacts of your arguments clear.

I will vote on whatever as long as it is explained. WARRANTS ARE A MUST, I want to hear how you interpret these things, not just names. Don't be obnoxious or rude, this leads to immediate loss of speaker points.

Background: 

- I'm currently in law school, I've judged zero rounds on this year's topic, and have done no research on this year's topic.

- NDT/CEDA debater for 5 years at the University of Wyoming (go pokes!).

- National Circuit debater for 3 years in High School.

I spent my first three years at Wyoming as a 2A/1N, and my last two years as a 2N/1A. I was a flexible debater. I prefer good, strategic arguments, which can come in any form.

Affirmatives: 

I prefer you have a relationship to the topic. I prefer plan texts or advocacy statements. If neither is present, I'd like an explanation of what the affirmative solves and how it does so.

Case debating is very important to me, on both sides.

Topicality: 

I love it. I like strong definition comparison and visions for the topic. I prefer competing interpretations, but can be persuaded by reasonability. You need to win an impact to topicality (education or fairness) for me to vote on it.

Theory: 

I like theory, I don't like theory blocks that are zipped through without specific clash. 

- Conditionality: If you can defend why you've read 7 different positions that contradict one another, then go for it. If you can't, then you shouldn't. If you read a counterplan that's several planks long, with each plank as conditional, then you need to be able to defend that, theoretically. 

Counterplans: 

I love counterplans and think they're a great tool. I like strategic counterplans. Affirmatives should challenge the theoretical legitimacy of different counterplans, and negatives should be prepared to debate out the theory. I prefer that your counterplan doesn't link to your disad. I prefer solvency overviews and a clear explanation of how the plan differs from the plan. I think counterplans are under-utilized and can be one of a debater's greatest assets.

Disads: 

I love disads. I prefer that all basics of the disad be present in the 1NC, and not sandbagged until the block (by this, I mean I generally dislike the one-card DA). Impact calc is very important, and I really value turns-case arguments. 

Kritiks: 

I think of Kritiks as a counterplan+disad formula, meaning that all of the same components must be present. 

I prefer specific link analysis, even if there aren't specific link cards available.

I'm intelligent, but not intelligent enough to comprehend all the details/theory that goes into high-theory criticisms within the first constructive speech. This means that you should make sure that you're explaining your arguments to me, rather than reiterating initial claims and hoping that I piece them together for yo. 

Other: 

Zero tolerance for clipping.

I think debate is educational and folks ought to be respectful of each other.

Short Version;

Run what you want to run. If you're from PF, I judge rounds with a lens of logic and risk evaluation. My paradigm applies to you more if you're from LD or Policy.

I'm okay with traditional and K debate. The ballot deciding journey is based on the argument map of the round -- which argument won here, canceled out there -- and which team has the better position after everything is added up.

*************

Long Version;

**If you choose the strategy of an 8-off blitzkrieg: Most likely expect a word at the end of the round about how that is neither fun nor valuable**

I debated for 3 years at Millard West Highschool. I ran renewable energy affirmatives and my last year I ran a courts affirmative dealing with Terry vs Ohio, that had a K aff counterpart. I love science affirmatives and anything exciting.

I try to be a clean slate, whose only purpose is to understand the arguments made, compute how they interact, and evaluate the big picture of the round. Judge intervention is not ideal, but when it does happen it's because there are gaps in the flow that I have no choice but to fill in order to reach a decision.

I prefer substance over tech -- let that apply to 8 off debates, ultra speed reading, and theory. I will occasionally, on rare occasions, take the liberty to ignore an inconsequential tech if it upholds the integrity of debate substance. If you're serious about condo, it gets a new piece of paper.

Kritiks-- You have to sell your solvency in order to win. If you're claiming to solve for real world harms, you have to anchor your kritik and our debate round in the real world and tell me explicitly why your aff/k is beneficial enough to deserve the ballot.

Framework-- Too many framework debates never make it much further than the shell. Again, same as kritiks, you need to anchor the framework to the real world and talk about the round and why the framework is beneficial enough to deserve the ballot. The aff probably claims to do something in the real world, you need to do something in the real world that outweighs what they do.

T-- I default to reasonability, within reason. The purpose of topicality should ideally stick to making sure the aff is topical. Topicality's best foot forward is impacted out impacts.

DA, CP-- Fairly straight forward. Sell a story, paint a picture.

Case-- I tend to like when debaters give overviews of their case and consistently sell it throughout the round.

LD

I am a proponent of debaters doing what they do best and I am pretty open to hearing anything you want to run, policy debate will do that to you.

Value & Criterion: I find this debate tends to be muddled. The way this debate works for me is impact calculus: who's impact matters more and why. A good way to think about this debate for me as a judge is to tell me why you win under either teams arguments which is aided by having offense against your opponent. I am a policy judge, I think in terms of impacts more than anything else so be sure you explain to my what your impacts are and why they outweigh your opponents (timeframe, magnitude, probability).

I do have some cautions about those running "policy debate arguments" in LD.

Kritiks: I come from a slightly more policymaker background though I ran and competed against K's plenty of times. That background gives me a certain threshold of explanation of a kritik, the alt, the link, that I am comfortable voting on and I have found no matter the debaters ability, there structurally isn't enough time in LD to reach that explanation threshold. I have voted for Ks in LD, but have found myself still adjusting my threshold appropriately for LD. I say this as a caution for those who wish to run K's. Like I said, I've voted on K's in LD, but my threshold is higher than perhaps normal.

Theory: Theory can be good and effective when argued with standards and impacts to the debate round/space. Debaters who read a bunch of theory arguments at the bottom of their case, rattled off one after another, without independent justification for each one, likely will find I won't evaluate those arguments: 1) because of what I said before this and 2) I try to avoid flowing from the speech doc so I may miss one of the theory blips you give so you won't win because of it--even if I consult the speech doc, if need to know you said it and where in order for me to get it to my flow.

Please please please ask me questions if you have them. I put these three aspects of my paradigm here because I know these are The debate space is your space and I want to give you as much information about me as a judge as possible to set you best up for success so do not hesitate to ask. If one team asks a question and the other isn't present, I will make sure each team is aware of what was asked and what my answer is.

PF

As I come from policy I don't have any really strong opinions on what PF should look like.

My one opinion on PF is that the SECOND REBUTTAL needs to address BOTH SIDES of the debate (that means you should attack and defend in this speech), if you do not do this, any arguments you don't address will be considered conceded. It helps to even out the advantage given to the second team by speaking last. I generally prefer the summary to be line-by-line compared to a whole round picture, you won't be punished (speaker points, assumed conceded args).

Mostly for me, don't be idiots in the round (or in general) and we should have a good, fun round.

Also, I do like to make jokes (and by jokes I mean really stupid, unfunny jokes that I find funny) feel free to laugh, or don't laugh, at them, or me, but just a heads up. It surprises some people.

Please ask me any questions you have! I'm always glad to talk about anything debate related or not!

POLICY

Updated 8/6/2015 (Most a copy and paste from original)
Background: Debated for four years at Millard West High School in Omaha, Nebraska and graduated in 2013. I don’t debate in college but am an assistant at Millard West. I go to school at UNL (if you wanted to know).
Spark Notes Version: Debate how you want to. That’s the most important thing. Debate is an educational game. Make sure you facilitate CLASH in the round. Please engage in your opponents arguments. Seriously. The biggest thing is do what you want to in the debate round. It isn't about me.
Speed: I am fine with. I will yell clear if I want you to be clearer.
Flashing Evidence: I will stop prep time when the flash drive is ejected from the computer of the team saving the files to it
Shadow Prepping: DO NOT SHADOW PREP. For clarity—shadow prep is defined as once prep time ends and one of the debaters in the round is still prepping. I will deduct prep time from the appropriate team. It is very annoying to see this trend. Once I see it happen less I will loosen up on this policy but I shouldn’t even have to mention it. Alas, I do.

Specific arguments:
Theory: This is always a difficult one to read the judges based on what they put on the wiki, and as such, theory is rarely run and it is even more rarely gone for. There is also a very simple reason for this: No one invests the time needed on theory to go for it. I love theory debates when they happen, but it kills me when they are done poorly. This is how I would evaluate a good theory debate: A shell can be used the first time it comes up by both sides, that’s fine. Just don’t zip through them. But when it comes time to going for the argument, you need to sit down and answer the shell of your opponent part by part. Just extending your arguments doesn’t work, answer back in full AND extend your arguments. Think of it like a Topicality debate, just extending your standards and voters won’t win you Topicality, the same applies here—you must answer. Do this and you will be in a better position to win theory in front of me. If you aren’t prepared to win a theory debate, don’t go for it—that’s a good rule of thumb for any debate actually.
Topicality: Speaking of Topicality, what would it take for me to vote on T? I loved topicality when I debated. It is such a great argument that has so many different aspects of it; it can be easy to trip up teams. That’s just a little so you know. Just like Theory, you need to answer every aspect of Topicality in order to win topicality, or if you are the affirmative, not lose on topicality. Never just extend the shells that are spewed off in the 1NC and the 2AC, do some in-depth analysis on the all levels. Interpretation is usually a big one to make sure to cover, then of course standards which prove the voters. Bottom-line: Clash on the topicality flow and utilize all of the flow to prove why you win.
Disadvantages: There is a theme in all of this, Clash and engagement. That is important on the disad as well. Also, I love disads. So much fun! Back to what is important to me. Well, all of it. Answer arguments is important, clearly. This should go without saying, but make sure your disads are Unique. This is something that is under-utilized in disad debate—specifics. Such as specific uniqueness evidence to people or pieces of legislation, or economic analysts, etc.
Politics: I love the politics disad and always enjoy seeing it ran. One thing—I hate the rational policy maker argument affs make against the politics disad—don’t do that. I will not vote on it.
Counterplans: I figure at this point I will be just reiterating myself if I talk about clash again, so I won’t. However, when negative you better show how you are competitive. Be warned, textual competition is shaky ground for me, functional competition is almost always a better way to go. That being said, if you love textually competitive counterplans I will listen to them, just be warned if challenged you better have clear and rock solid reasons as to why textually competitive counterplans are good.
Kritiks: I enjoy kritiks but you should know a few things about them to win them with me. As the negative, you need to win alternative solvency. If you don’t do this, you probably will lose. Negative, just because you give long overviews doesn’t mean you answered their arguments directly. You need to apply those arguments you made in the overview to the flow specifically.
Framework: Framework is a great way to tell me how to evaluate the round, whether it be policy-maker, or critical, or whatever you want. Be warned, I do not find the framework of “exclude my opponents because they debate wrong” persuasive at all. Just figured I would let you know that ahead of time…
Round Behavior: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Kicking Positions: I will not kick positions for you. If you argue it in the 2NR or 2AR, I will evaluate it.

Put me on the email chain please: lexi.ellis227@gmail.com

General Stuff:

-I will not evaluate arguments that are about something that happened outside of the debate round.

-unless otherwise argued, I default to judge kick is okay. If you want to get into specifics like cp planks, then I would prefer you make an argument about why judge kicking one part is okay.

-I believe that affs should be in the direction of the topic

-Impact out theory debates

~More specific arguments~

Kritiks:

-I don't think that a link of omission is a link. My threshold is pretty high for this so if you do so feel compelled to go for this argument, just know you will need to dedicate a lot of time to it.

-I like to see a lot of work done on the alt debate in the block. I need to see clear arguments as to what the world of the alt looks like and why the alt solves better than the aff.

Framework:

-I think fairness is more an internal link than it is an impact. (i.e. fairness is an internal link to topic education, clash, etc)

-In addition to framework there needs to be some sort of argument to indict the aff's methods. In rounds where this doesn't happen by the neg, I find the aff's argument to weigh the impacts more compelling. Read arguments as to why their theory is wrong.

Topicality:

-Limits are universally good.

-You should slow down

-T-USFG is more persuasive to me than a framework arg.

Experience: I debated policy for four years at Sioux Falls Washington in SD. During that time, my partner(s) and I were State Champions, took 4th place at Nationals in 2012, and 9th place in 2013. I was also the 14th speaker in the nation my senior year. I now actively judge policy debate in NE and SD. On the Aff, I generally ran policy Aff. On the Neg, I was known for closing for DA/Case, DA/CP/Case, or Topicality.

General Paradigm: Know that I will listen to anything. I am interested in hearing the arguments that you enjoy debating the most. However, if no one in the round tells me how to evaluate, I default to a policymaking framework. Tied into all of this, I care most about warrants and evidence comparison. I prefer to hear well-developed arguments over a spread of warrantless claims and bad evidence. I’m down with speed though.

I care deeply about impact calculus when evaluating rounds. Therefore, I need specificity and comparisons when you are addressing these sort of framing concerns. This is especially important during the final speeches. I do not want to just hear the buzzwords magnitude, probability, and time frame. Extrapolate upon your unique framing.

On specific arguments...

Topicality: When done well, topicality can be a very effective tool. The problem is that many debaters do not know how to debate topicality well. If you’re going to close for T, I prefer that you spend your entire 2NR on the issue. I prefer specific, in-round abuse scenarios, but will vote on potential abuse if well explained. I also generally default to a framework of competing interpretations, valuing teams that can best explicate why their interpretation is valid. Note that I prefer T over generic theory arguments.

Theory: I will evaluate theory, but will say that I do not prefer these debates. Often I just hear blocks read with no real clash and violations that are woefully generic. Additionally, I don’t appreciate really blippy theory arguments early in the round that become round-changing in the rebuttals. Give your theory arguments substance from the beginning. If you’re going to run theory, make sure that it is grounded in what is happening in the round. Again, I prefer in-round abuse scenarios to potential abuse.

CP: I am definitely open to listening to CPs. That being said, make sure that your CP solves part, if not all, of the case advantages. Solvency deficit arguments from the Aff go far for me. It’s the burden of the Neg team to prove CP solvency.

DAs: I am a big fan of disadvantages. I do not have a problem with generic DAs, but prefer the links to be as specific as possible. However, I understand that there is not a lot of literature for diverse DAs this year, and will take that into account. I am always skeptical of internal link scenarios, and the Neg has to do more work here.

Kritiks: As someone who hardly ever ran critical arguments in high school, I will say that I am not as well-versed in K literature as I would like to be. However, in my time judging I have heard a fair number of performance Affs and Ks on the Neg. I am open to hearing these interesting debates, but just require some more warranting/overviews. As such, I will need more explanations of K arguments that might be less commonly run or unique. In particular, I want a focus on the link and alt stories. Most of the time I am highly skeptical of alternatives. If you don’t understand the evidence yourself, don’t run the K in front of me.  

Case: I am a big fan of case debate. I think that it is very important that the Affirmative team takes advantage of their 1AC and utilizes it throughout the round and across flows. There’s a reason you read it for 8 minutes. On the flip side, I really appreciate Negative teams that focus on debating the specifics of advantages and case solvency. You can really bolster your Negative strategy by taking out components of case.

At the end of the day, I want you to debate the round that you want most. As long as you are polite, engaged, and strategic, we should have a fun round!

DISCLAIMER: EVERYTHING I SAY MUST BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT - THE ROUND IS YOURS, I WILL VOTE ON ANYTHING THAT EXPLAINED WELL ENOUGH!!! I also encourage questions before the rounds if there are any specific questions that need clarification.

tl;dr - know the ins and outs of the arguments you run. Good debate mechanics coupled with execution and decision making will get my ballot constantly.

That being said...here's how to pander to me

Affiliation: Sioux Falls Lincoln
Experience: I debated for 4 years during high school in and out of my home state of South Dakota. My first two years of debate were strictly policy oriented; however, during my junior and senior year I ran a lot of kritiks (some better than others and with varying levels of proficiency) so I'm fine with voting on anything from T to performance affs.

Generic philosophy:
My judging philosophy is that each round is a game. As a game, there are implicit and explicit win conditions that must be met to receive the ballot. That means that arguments must stand up by themselves to a certain threshold if they hope to win. For that reason, framing is what I put the most weight upon.
I love seeing well put together game strategies tailored to pick apart opponents but well researched generics are fine too. For affirmatives, a well thought out advantage with strong internal link scenarios is much better than five one card scenarios. The same applies to the neg, a single great DA > 20 spec arguments. I very much love to see thought put into arguments and strategy and doing so will reward you in front of me.

Win conditions/Burdens: These are the standard(ish) ways that debates are won and I use them as a guideline to determine the round. They are all subject to change should I be told otherwise.

Policy round: Impact calc (Magnitude, timeframe, probability, or who accesses them best)
Policy round w/ ethics impacts: Util > Deontology or vice versa (impact framing)
Policy round w/ counterplan: Neg must prove superior solvency with a net benefit that o/w any potential solvency deficit
Policy round with kritik: Will vary from K to K. Usually will center around a single framing issue in an overview (ontology, epistemology, etc)

performance round: It'll really come down to what is happening in round.

Speaks:
30: Best speaker I've seen all tournament - You are so good that I expect to see you in outrounds and/or winning the tournament.
29: Best speaker in the round - You were clear and provided all the warrants I could ever need.
28: Good speaker - I usually start each debater at around this many points and move up or down accordingly. If you get a 28 at the end of the round, it was because you were a good speaker with a strong grasp on fundamentals.
27: An okay speaker - A couple things may have gone wrong somewhere along the line but you were able to recover. 27's usually mean that you are becoming unclear or at time are very hard to understand.
26 and below: I DO NOT like giving out low speaks and I usually reserve this for speakers that were either offensive or impossible to understand. If you get a 26, something went very wrong.

Specific Issues -

Speed: If you happen to be a debate robot and can put out obscene amounts of evidence in a short span of time remember that some of us are only human. Don't be afraid to slow down, especially on tags, because clarity will get you farther than speed. I never want to have to call a card unless the wording is being highly disputed so If you zoom through all your warrants don't expect me to get them all the first time around. This is still a communicative activity and if you aren't communicating your information to me then don't be upset if you get voted down because I can't understand what is happening.

Theory: I'm fairly open to either side of this debate simply because It was never an issue I felt strong or attached to. Perms might be good, bad, ugly or a consult counterplan might be the devil. I don't know. Those calls are up to the people in the round. I will say that I was irked by multiple conditional counterplans but even then I won't insta-drop you for it. If a theory hail mary is what it takes for you to win the round, feel free.

Topicality: Very much like theory. I don't feel a strong attachment to it but I did close for it much more than I'd care to admit. It's all up to interpretation but terrible topicalities are a real non-starter so please don't make me vote on them.

Disadvantages: There isn't much to say about disads. We have all read them from day one so they are a debaters safest bet. Just have a nice and clean overview that explains the thesis of the disad with some impact calc and you will be golden. If you are feeling fancy, throw in a turn or two to spice things up.

Counterplans: A well researched, specific counterplan is beautiful. I firmly believe that the counterplan is the most under-utilized tool in the neg arsenal and should be used in conjunction with a strong internal net benefit grounded in literature surrounding the aff. Any and all theory arguments need to be well explained.

Kritiks: I spent a good deal of time working with these so I feel right at home in K rounds. I've read almost all major kritiks at one point or another but if you are going off the beaten path and reading something I've not yet seen be sure to explain it in terms we can all understand. I do hold kritiks to a higher level of scrutiny because they are often very fluid in that they have a shifting win condition that varies from K to K. Make sure it is clear why I should evaluate things a certain way or why I should care. If you don't give me framing then you aren't getting a ballot.

Performance affs/negs: These rounds are fun to watch; I'll be more than happy to be in the back of them.

Last Update 1/4/22
High School: Barstow

I debated for Barstow for four years and qualified to the TOC (2015), however I did not do debate in college. I have not judged for a while (and haven't judged virtual debate at all) and the extent of my topic knowledge is incredibly limited so please dont use all the acronyms and whatever may be trendy to say this year.

Things to do --

1. Slow down/speak clearly. Fewer/better/longer cards, more explanation. Make a distinction between tag, text, and analytical arguments.

2. Start the 2nr or 2ar with what the first 10-15 seconds of the decision would sound like.

3. More case, it's clash-filled and engaging. No ev on the case? Doesn't mean you've got nothing to say; I love analytical arguments.

4. Tell me what evidence to read and why. I value ev quality greatly but don't read much unless it's contested.

Other things:
I debated policy (DAs, CP, T) in high school but am open to other styles of debate. However, I think the topic should be used at least as a starting point for the round- what that looks like is up to you. College has made me find more critique literature interesting and relevant to debate, but you should still create the "story"

Kritiks: I have a decent knowledge of the typical ones. If your strategy is going to be one-off or an obscure kritik be prepared to do some explaining. Regardless of the type, have an actual link. Links of omission are not links but can always be persuaded otherwise. I do find arguments like case OW compelling, but neg can win V2L claims if done with proper detail.

Theory: Still have yet to hear a good reason that makes sense for conditionality, especially when used in conjunction with contradictory arguments. If you plan on going for condo, make it a real thing in the 2ac, not just 10 blippy sentences.

Counterplans:
I don't know much about any topic specific counter plans. There should be a solvency advocate for your CP. Literature checks most abuse in response to theory, teams should be rewarded if they are able to find a specific counter plan to your aff.

brubaie at gmail -- Please add to email chains, thank you

Updated March 2022 for championship season -- congratulations yall!

1. Just do what you do and do it well.I like every "style" of debate and have been lucky to debate, coach, or judge most over these past two decades. Thank you for being stewards of a beautiful game at a pivotal moment in debate history.

2. Above all. The 2NR/2AR should clearly describe what the most important issue(s) in the debate are, why they're the most important issues, and how voting your way best addresses them. Choose, compare, and dig in on a few A+ arguments over a greater volume of A- arguments.

3. Framework. I judge quite a few framework debates and like them. I don't have a strong "lean," but I do notice some slight trends;

-- For the neg, I often find that leaning on fairness/some procedural impact is best. It's the thing the neg's interp most often clearly solves relative to a counter-interp. I think the TVA + aff doesn't solve combo is an effective strategy. I often find that lots of direct pushback vs. case (even without evidence) is necessary and effective. If you don't win some significant defense to the aff it can complicate most paths to victory.

-- For the aff, it helps to clarify a role for each side and to negate/impact turn the neg's interp from there. If you don't have a description of why debating the aff is good and/or how the other team can engage then it can complicate most paths to victory. I am more moved by "here's what the neg could do" than counter-interpreting "resolved."

4. Evidence quality. It's very important, but the key to activating it in my RFD is rebuttal framing. The way evidence is utilized and framed in the final rebuttals is usually the most important variable in how I assess it. The easiest way to hypothesize which evidence I read is a simple if/then: if I hear a clip/quote/even an author name referenced directly in the last speech then I'll 100% read it. Beyond that I'll read for comprehension but that is less likely to drive the outcome of my RFD than direct framing by debaters.

5. Counterplans/theory. Not the worst judge for a funky counterplan. Most common 2AC theory objections seem like competition concerns remedied by kicking the counterplan. I'm not terrible for conditionality bad, but that's almost always because of tech concerns like a flippant block that doesn't answer the 2AC than truth concerns like any real aversion to conditionality (I generally think it's good).

6. Topicality. I haven't really judged a big T throwdown this year. If you prefer someone with no set preferences I'm great, but if you want someone to adhere to consensus I'm afraid I'm unsure what consensus is and will need more explanation than most. Despite my unfamiliarity with many interps, T has generally been an efficient/low-risk/high reward block option in past rounds I've judged.

7. Critiques. The more a K identifies specific parts of the 1AC/2AC that it disagrees with, the better. The aff should attempt to identify which parts of the aff are offense, why only the aff solves them, and why they outweigh. I generally think the aff gets to weigh the aff and most neg framework arguments just seem like impact calculus.

8. National championships!! Congrats again yall :) March 2022 will mark my first tournament judging in person since February 2020. I am thrilled to see you all again and to celebrate all you've done for debate. I know it's the national championship and it's tough to relax, but try as hard as you can to just have fun and enjoy it. Debate goes by way too fast and is very easy to take for granted. Sending all who read this the best of luck and hope you can lift each other up and give each other some really fun, challenging debates to end the season.

Noah Schrick
Experience: 5 years of high school debate at Tulsa-Union (OK), volunteer for UDL in Tulsa (TDL).
Email: nschrick98@gmail.com

Paradigm –
Game-playing.

Policy/Traditional Affs –
No objection to these. I think these can be some of the most developed and strategic affs. That being said, shady or loose internal links is a pretty easy way for me to vote neg on presump.

Topicality –
All for it. 5 minutes of T in the 2NR is a very fun, legitimate strat. If you do go for T, be sure to impact your standards out. In addition, don't just make blanket, generic impact claims such as, "this is bad for education." I think that education and fairness are impacts, but also internal links to external issues. Why is education important? Why should we care about fairness? Be sure to explain these for extra speaks and a better T debate.
Refer to speed section.

Theory –
Also all for it. I’ll vote for any theory argument as long as you can fully explain why I should vote for it. Granted, I'll have a higher threshold for a crazy, off the wall arg, however I will still vote for it if it is explained well enough and impacted out.
I default to reject the arg unless there is substantial work done to explain why I should go otherwise, or there is a prejudice made by a team that is interfering with the debate.
Refer to speed section.

Framework –
Will gladly vote on it. I do think RoBs are arbitrary, and I'm hard-pressed to believe that it can win an argument, but I guess I'm open to it if you can convince me why a drop is game-changing. Both teams usually present them in a way to exclude the other. Majority of the time, no real clash occurs from these.
Refer to speed section.

K Affs/Non-Traditional –
Go for it. Would prefer it was germane to the topic, but it's not a necessity.
Disclaimer: I am not completely up-to-date with identity args and authors. Just make sure that rather than giving author names, read out their claims and warrants to me. I'm not lay, but do explain the world of the aff and explain what the args mean. You can usually tell pretty easily if I'm following or not.

CP –
All CPs are fine. With that in mind, if you read a rider, delay, or any other similar counterplan, be ready to defend theory since I'll have a higher threshold. CPs must also be competitive and have a net benefit. It will take a lot of work to convince me to vote for a CP just because it has good solvency with no additional benefits.
Aff: if you read theory on a CP, be sure to explain why the CP in question is bad, not just the type of CP (Example: I'll vote on Intl' CP Fiat Bad, but I will be much more likely to buy China/Russia/Japan Fiat Bad)

DA –
Specifics over generic. I will vote for generic DA’s/links, but it will be much easier to sway me to not vote for them if it is generic. No link args made by aff will be harder to overcome for generics.

K –
Reading the same K shell every round won’t cut it. Whether you have cards specific for the aff case or not, you need to apply the K in terms of the aff. If you can read back 1AC/2AC cards or quotes and link it back to the K, it will go a long way for your link analysis. I really don’t like to vote on link of omissions, but I will if you can convince me why I should. Expect to put in time to convince me to vote on those; a couple sentences won’t get the job done. Don’t just repeat alt taglines at me, contextualize it in terms of the aff/round/world/whatever.
Refer to K aff section in regards to identity.

Speed –
Don’t shotgun theory/t/fw args. If you read 5 blippy analytical arguments that you believe are all key reasons why I should vote for your args, but you read them all in rapid succession without stopping for a breath and you still expect me to catch and flow every single one, I won’t. If I don’t catch it, I won’t flow it. Clarity comes before speed. Taglines should be presented with a change in pitch or volume.
Debaters tend to spread paragraphs of analytical args and expect me to flow every word. If you do have these paragraphs, slow down a tad so that I can write it. You don't need to talk in a normal speaking voice, but at least slow down a little.
That being said, I am okay with speed, despite what you might interpret from that. Don’t be afraid to read quickly in front of me. If you think you could flow it, then I will probably be able to as well.

Misc-

-Overflows > Underflows. But also, I just don't like underflows in general.
-Prep ends when the drive leaves the computer or when the email is sent.

-I love Clever technical tricks/kicks/cross-applications. This will get a major boost in speaks from me.

-CX is binding.
-Don’t clip cards. This should be obvious and applies to every round.
-If you’re kicking an advocacy such as a CP or an alt, be sure to say so.
-If there’s an email chain, go ahead and put me in it.
-Cross-Ex: Be aggressive, not rude.
-Don’t mock or be distracting during someone else’s speech. I will dock speaker points if I deem it necessary

Speaker points –
30: Probably the best speaker at the tournament
29.5+: Getting a speaker award
29+: Has a few mistakes, but is still a fantastic speaker
28.5+: More mistakes, but still above average
28+: About average, could’ve handled some things differently or improved on speaking quality
27.5+: Many mistakes
27+: Many larger mistakes
26: Made huge errors that affected the outcome of my decision
Below a 26: Behavior, actions, or words that are harmful or hateful towards a people or a person directly. Also given for those that don’t fully participate.

Last Updated Feb. 2022

Bio & Experience: I did 4 years of high school policy for Kearney High School in Nebraska and 4 years of college debate split between UMKC and UNL. I previously ran the debate website Debate Central. I have coached high school debate and judged many rounds locally and nationally over the past 15ish years. Most recently I was the assistant coach at Lincoln East. My current full-time job is outside debate, doing research and data analysis. I have coached and taught every event in a classroom setting, but my background is in policy. As a policy debater, I ran arguments of every style; I went for the K slightly more often than policy arguments. I ran plenty of nontopical affs, but also went for T on the neg with some frequency. I don’t see myself as belonging to any particular stylistic “camp.”

As a person, I am a 30-domething white woman who does not fall neatly into any political party. I care about social justice and fair opportunities for all. I think it extremely important to challenge one's assumptions, both in debate and in life. I have degrees in poli sci/public policy and read quite a bit of philosophy/theory as a hobby, and I don't love it when debaters make arguments about those topics that are wildly incorrect. I include this information because social location is never wholly divorceable from the intellectual process of judging a debate. However, I make every attempt to render every decision based only on the content of the given debate.

I see debate ideally as an open testing ground for ideas and its accompanying community committed to growth and discovery. I want us to approach each other with kindness and good faith.

THE ONLY PART OF THIS YOU ACTUALLY NEED TO READ

Above anything else, I believe debate is a place for the debaters to come together and discuss their ideas. I strive to keep my personal evaluation of those ideas out of my decision calculus. I also believe that debate shapes us all in important ways, socially and intellectually, and debaters should take that into account. Those questions are as relevant to policy/trad teams as they are to K teams, and are particularly crucial to “clash of the civilizations” debates. I am open to hearing any kind of argumentation and enjoy it all pretty much equally.

I appreciate debates that involve some creativity and original ideas the most. This might take any form (unusual disad, personal scholarship, tricky procedural arguments, original narratives, unexpected PIC, etc). I see these as much more valuable than yet another round of going through the motions of saying the exact same thing. I won’t vote against you for just going for ASPEC/generic spending disad/the same K you’ve been reading for 3 years/whatever, but I do think we could all likely do something better with that time. I want to see debaters engaged with the ideas and information they are presenting.

No matter what your argumentation style is, I expect clearly articulated claims & warrants, detailed impact comparison, and rebuttals that tell me what a ballot in your favor should look like. What does it mean for me to cast my ballot for you, and why should I? If you are always directly answering those questions with your rebuttals, you should be fine.

I am always open to hearing argumentation about anything*, including debate norms. I will attempt to judge from any paradigm the round I watch asks me to adopt, even where it conflicts with what I’ve written here.

Here are some assumptions I default to unless you tell me otherwise:

• The ballot goes to the team who most successfully convinced me they deserve it in this round (why you “deserve it” can take on a lot of forms, and is up to you to develop)
• I will be flowing in a “typical” policy debate format, and assigning individual arguments to flows based on the sign-posting and organization the debaters create for me. Absent any organizational work from debaters, I might flow in one long column of “mess.”
• Offense trumps defense (unless the defense is 100%- this is rare, but possible).
• Silence is consent. New answers to drops shouldn’t be evaluated, but creative cross-applications are fair game.
• Argumentation is more important than evidence. I will only consider flaws in evidence if they are pointed out in the debate, or if there is no clash on the question other than tag-line extensions.
• No new arguments in the rebuttals. Impact comparison should begin before your last speech.
• Theory can be a voting issue, but I am unlikely to vote on it without robust argumentation about why the issue deserves the ballot. “Reject the argument, not the team” is persuasive absent an excellent counter.
• Impacts that actually happen are of greater concern than imaginary impacts. Ideas created in the debate space exist in real life, they affect us as humans, and we are responsible for them. Roleplaying as a policymaker does not make one immune from this. (This might be translated as: no matter what your approach to debate is, you better win your top-level framing stuff)

*Exceptions: I will not add speeches to the round or assign double wins or automatic block 30s, because I don’t want to mess with the tab room. These are the only considerations I’m committed to. Anything else is fair game.

OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT SPECIFIC DEBATE STUFF (in case you're super curious about my debate thoughts for some reason).

Please note these are written in a policy debate context, but the ideas expressed apply to my thoughts in other formats too:

Speed: Talk as fast as you want. I’ll listen to Ks of speed, but they better be more than “reject speed because I don’t like it.” If I say “clear,” you need to speak more clearly (this is not the same as slower). Lower threshold for anti-speed args if the debater making them has a disability or other accessibility concern and clearly expresses it before the round starts.

Evidence: Covered above. I will only call for cards if (1) I’m verifying a claim about the evidence made in a speech (2) I’m looking for a way to make a decision on an important issue that was inadequately covered by both sides. The first will please me, the second will not. Making comparisons between your evidence and your opponents’ evidence is extremely important and highly encouraged. Tell me why I should prefer yours. “Our evidence is from a peer-reviewed study while theirs is from some guy with a blog”= good. “this evidence is on fire, read it after the round!”= pointless.

Framework: No matter what your style is, you need to win your framework debate. By this I mean, you need to win why I should evaluate the debate from a perspective that allows you to win on the substance. Again, what does it mean for me to cast my ballot for you?

Framework is the place where we discuss what it takes to win the debate. This involves lots of complex questions that are not just “am I allowed to run Ks?” or “does the aff have to be topical?” (although of course those particular questions are involved). Your framework should define the roles for both sides, and cover how we determine which side wins. For 2 different examples: “the aff must defend the implementation of a topical policy action, the neg must defend the status quo or a competitive policy option. The winner is the team whose advocacy is found to be comparatively advantageous” or “the winner should be decided by determining which performance or advocacy best advances diversity in debate.”

Framework decides how I will evaluate the rest of the issues in the round. It shapes how all of the clash on the substance is weighed. A good framework debate walks me through what arguments on other flows I should evaluate and why. It is a frame for the round. It does not begin from “my opponent should not be allowed to make X argument,” but rather is an attempt to explain how a judge might consider the various impacts potentially manifested by diverse ideas. (for example, a policy framework might instruct me to view a political counterplan as a legitimate counter-advocacy to the ideas presented by a nontopical aff, and discuss how competition is affected). I am not impressed by framework debates whose only implication is “vote for us because they are cheaters.” I’m unlikely to be stoked about framework debates from either side that end by asking me to wholesale disregard everything your opponent has said.

Policy teams win by winning that the discussion of policy considerations is valuable, and that their impacts are of great importance due to timeframe, magnitude, and probability. The policy is thus worthy of a judge’s intellectual endorsement as a “good idea.” K teams win by winning that discussion of ontology/epistemology/methodology/etc is valuable, that these considerations implicate or undermine policy-level conclusions, and that the K alternative somehow mitigates some identified problem. The kritik is therefore deserving of endorsement via the ballot. Trying to win the whole debate by convincing me that one of these “planes” of concern is totally unworthy of my attention is going to be difficult for you unless your opponent does a particularly bad job.

None of this means I won’t vote on a framework arg designed to exclude (such as “aff must defend usfg fiat” against a K aff with no plan text). I will if you win, just as anything else. I’m also willing to vote for the kritik of this type of framework. Full disclosure: I think frameworks designed to exclude are pedagogically questionable and (probably more importantly to you:) easy to lose. However, I’m conversely fairly unlikely to vote on the K of framework against a framework that wasn’t designed to wholesale exclude the aff from the debate (again, such as a framework that insists on considering disads or counterplans as responsive to a particular nonpolicy methodology of the aff). This obviously depends on the individual round. If your strategy for a round depends on one of these arguments (“you cheat and that’s a voter” or “trying to exclude us is a voter”) you are strongly advised to consider this paragraph and ask me about it if it strikes you as unclear.

Please talk to me if you have any questions or concerns or need clarification on anything I have said. Framework debates can be complex stuff, and are increasingly crucial to everything else that happens in many of the rounds I've been watching over the past few years. The most important point I am trying to convey is that good framework debates should set up a clear path of calculus for a judge comparing diverse impacts. They should not, IMO, be an appeal to completely ignore all of your opponents’ arguments.

Topicality: I will vote on topicality. I need to see clean, substantial, deep comparison of standards and voters. I do not necessarily require in-round abuse, unless there are arguments about why I should. In a round between two policy teams, I really enjoy a good T debate and will default to competing interpretations. I am very, very unlikely to vote on a straight RVI. When I’m wearing my “policymaker hat” I tend to assume the aff does need to be topical and the neg is entitled to test the aff’s topicality.

When I like T, it’s because I have a real personal curiosity and love for words and linguistic precision. These debates explain topicality as something like a judicial/legalistic investigation into the exact significance of a particular word choice. When I don’t like T, it’s because the neg’s argument is basically “we wanted to run this one disad but it doesn’t link to you :(” or “here is a dumb, super-limiting definition of this word I found lol vote neg.”

In a “clash of civilizations” round, a neg would obviously have to win plenty of top-level “why should I care about whether the aff is topical?” questions AND THEN also win the T line-by-line. I humbly suggest that there might be better ways to approach this debate than just going for USFG T again, but hey-- you do you. See the framework section for probably-relevant thoughts.

I’m equally likely to vote for a well-articulated K of T as for a topicality argument. If you like going for Ks of T, keep in mind that I consider them to be vulnerable to “there is a topical version of the aff” (important questions for both sides here: is there? and how would it differ from the nontopical version?) and “reject the argument, not the team/kicking is good enough.” These arguments are not trump cards, but are issues you shouldn’t brush off in front of me.

Procedurals: I really hate them and will be irritated if you make me waste several hours of my Saturday watching you read your ASPEC blocks. I’ve yet to hear a compelling reason why existential inherency doesn’t provide enough neg ground. OSPEC is the dumbest argument ever. No one gains anything from these debates. I don’t outright refuse to vote for these things, I will if you win them, and I understand that sometimes you need filler or will take advantage of an opponent’s time allocation mistake. But making these a major part of your strategy indicates a lack of creativity and intellectual ambition that will annoy me and reflect in your speaker points. I will also give a lot of weight to basically anything your opponent says to these, so you’re banking on major drops.

On the other hand, creative procedurals that are specific to a particular aff can be fun.

Theory: I’ll vote on it, but you will need to display significant in-round abuse and do more than just repeat your blocks in every speech. Making the debate all about theory when it could be about something else probably won’t help your speaks any with me, but I’ll vote there if I have to. Again, “reject the argument, not the team” is often persuasive. I lean neg in most theory debates, most of the time.

Disads/CPs/policy arguments: Yes.

Tricky, specific PICs are among my favorite strategies for dealing with many types of affirmatives. Doing something cool here will excite me.

Kritiks/”performance”/personal advocacies/nontopical affs: Yes.

I am pretty familiar with most of this lit, but that doesn’t absolve you from debating as though I wasn’t. Your link story should be tailored to the debate and include as many illustrations as possible. Don’t just repeat lingo; apply the theory you’re discussing to this specific round.

If you are obviously really unfamiliar with the ideas you’re advancing, it won’t stop me from voting for you if you’re winning, but I will be annoyed and your speaker points will take a hit.

You also need to make sure you are spending some time developing the alternative. What does it do? In other words, in a hypothetical perfect enactment of the alt, what would that look like? What would be different? How does the alt achieve solvency? Etc. (I tend to find "asking us to explain what the alternative does is a new link!" very tiresome, but it can be good if explained correctly.)

To reiterate something I hinted at above: I’m about as permissive as they come in terms of what I think is worth discussing in debate. I will not be a fan, though, if your K argument isn’t an actual argument (e.g. tell me WHAT you are defending, HOW it differs from your opponents’ ideas, and WHY I should want to cast my ballot for it).

Ins/Outs, tag team, where you speak from, paperless ev exchanges off the clock, and any other minor details about the setup of the round: I don’t care what you do.

I expect students to keep their own time. I will also run a clock, but I shouldn’t be depended on for timekeeping purposes. I don’t give time signals (unless you don’t want me to flow).

In the event of technical difficulties, I will allow a reasonable (decided based on how tight the tournament is running, etc- no more than 5 minutes) amount of “free” time to attempt to recover lost documents/reboot computers/whatever. No one is allowed to prep during this time. If I see you prepping, I will run your prep clock. If you have a complete paperless meltdown and lose your entire flow, that is a problem for you and your partner to deal with and will not result in any extra time for prepping. Please take whatever steps you need to to avoid this outcome.

Cheating: YOUR SUCCESS SHOULDN’T COME FROM ANYTHING BESIDES YOUR BRAINPOWER. If I notice you are stealing prep, clipping cards, or doing anything else shady, I will give you one verbal warning, deduct speaker points commensurate with the severity of the offense (at least 1, possibly as much as drop you to zero), and speak to your coach about it after the round. Multiple minor offenses will result in drastic speaker point deductions. If I notice you clipping more than once (doesn’t have to be the same round or even the same tournament) I will issue you a loss and speak to the tab room about it. This may happen even if your opponents don't notice or point out the cheating. In all cases, I may also consider in-round argumentation about the nature of your punishment from both sides, when appropriate, although the offending team is unlikely to win “nothing should happen to us.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------

An incomplete list of things I like: tricky, specific strategies from all stylistic backgrounds. Debaters who are personally engaged with their argumentation and put their own spin on existing scholarship. Meta-level discussions of epistemology, meaning production, and what it means to participate in and win debates. Concrete examples and illustrations that bring your ideas to life. Strategic concessions & using your opponents’ arguments against them. Clean, organized debating. Rebuttals that “write my RFD for me.” Following the path of least resistance to the win. Arguments that begin “even if our opponents win X, we still win the debate because of Y.” Approaching your opponents with respect, kindness, good faith, and generosity of spirit. Well-defined clash. Funny jokes, a sense of style, and a little bit of sass. Asking questions and continuing the conversation post-round. Using debate as a place to explore ideas with an open heart and mind.

An incomplete list of things I dislike: Reliance on generic backfiles from the Clinton administration. Recitation of blocks without tailoring them to the specifics of the round. Obvious unfamiliarity with your own evidence and/or basic world events (understanding of what is happening around you and what has happened in the past is equally important for the articulation of K and policy arguments). Excessively long overviews; anything labeled an “underview.” Thinking you’re funny for reading horrible arguments (you can’t even begin to fathom how many people have gone for wipeout since the last time it was funny; you are wasting everyone’s time). Arguments that encourage anyone to quit debate. “Kicking” framework and acting as if it doesn’t impact every other flow. Sloppy debating that lacks direct refutation, sign-posting, and/or overall direction. Repitition of jargon or buzzwords without meaningful discussion of their significance. Affs who go for perms or no links when they should be going for internal link turns or impact turns. Approaching your opponents with disrespect, bad will, or cavalierly impugning their motives (saying “their arguments justify fascism” is very different from saying “they are fascists.” Understand the severity of personal accusations).

Speaker Points: I’m adding this section due to ongoing chaos in the college community surrounding the issue. Speaker points are always subjective, but I’m offering a guide to what my mental rubric looks like:

30= Flawless in terms of coverage, technique, and strategy. Masterful grasp of the topics being discussed, eloquent, creative argumentation, deep and well-developed. Funny, pleasant, engaging, clear, and respectful. One of the best speeches I’ve ever heard in this division. Extremely rare.

29-29.9= Excellent mastery of technical skills, coverage, and understanding of the topics of the debate. Displayed good strategic vision. Speaker is respectful, engaging, and eloquent and making is smart, compelling arguments. Any errors are minor. Overall, a tremendously impressive speaker.

28-28.9= Coverage, strategy, and technical skills were good. Speaker displays good engagement with the topics of the debate, makes clear arguments, and creates in-depth clash. Some creativity. No major errors. Not rude or offensive. Speaker was good, but did not stand out as great in this round.

27-27.9= Major errors. Coverage, strategy, or technical skills may have caused serious problems for this speaker. Clash might be limited to tagline extensions or repetition of claims without warrants. Speech might display a major lack of familiarity with the debater’s own evidence. Debater’s demeanor may have been noticeably and unjustifiably rude or disrespectful (without being an obvious ethical violation). Do a rebuttal redo from this round with your coach.

26-26.9- Debater failed to meet minimum standards for this division (filling speech time [except where unnecessary], advancing some coherent arguments). Speaker is encouraged to keep trying!

25- Given to a speaker who shows up to a round, but fails to meaningfully participate in the debate at all (such as by forfeiting or waiving their speech). This is not a hard rule, and the circumstances for a forfeit will be considered.

0-24- Given only as punishment for some ethical violation, such as hate speech, flagrant time-stealing, or first-offense minor card clipping. This might arise due to opponent’s argumentation or my own prerogative. Extreme circumstances only.

*Please always feel free to chat with me about anything written here, or any questions you have. I like talking about debate, and I don’t live under the illusion that I’m never wrong. I welcome any and all conversations.*

I'm a high school policy debater at Barstow and I vote on the flow. 

1. Explain more cards, more explanation the better. Distinguish between tag and text. 

2. Staying on case is good because it creates good clash and engagement, but I do like analytical arguments. Give explanations of how you interpret arguments. 

Neg: 

I like Ks, but only if you understand and explain them well. I will vote on theory, but show me that you understand it. Don't take 5 off into rebuttals, feel free to kick out and go for your strongest ones. 

Aff:

Make answers and analytical arguments to theory. You should win case. I need to hear warrants. I am open to all kinds of debate but please focus on the topic at first.

haley.turner@barstowschool.org PLEASE include me in e-mail chains

I am a former high school debater. I participated in policy debate at Barstow from 2012-2017, and I have judged many policy rounds.

AFF: I want warrants in rebuttals - don't just extend names, tell me why I should care about these things. I prefer plan texts. I am open to all kinds of debate, but I think the debate should start by addressing the topic, how that looks is up to you.

NEG: I will vote on Theory if it is well explained and not dropped. No need to keep 5 off case into rebuttals, kick out of args if you are losing them GO FOR YOUR STRONG ONES, rebuttals should focus on 1-3 off. I weigh case first, (no need to weigh off case arguments if case has not been addressed) so do not forget to address case arguments.

I will vote on anything, as long as it is explained. I like Ks if you can explain them (DO NOT ASSUME I HAVE READ THE LITERATURE) and if your opponents and I understand what is going on. Analytical arguments are GOOD, don't just let args drop. WARRANTS ARE A MUST, I want to hear how you interpret these things, not just authors. Please don't attempt to change my mind during my RFD. Do not be obnoxious, rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or offensive in any means. This will lead to immediate loss of speaker points and probably loss of the round.

2023 update: I have not judged in a couple years, so going a bit slower is best for me as well as explaining any jargon relevant to the topic.

email: gradywiedeman@gmail.com

I do not need to be on the email chain if it's an LD round, I would like to be on the email chain if it's a policy round. I have no preferences on standing/sitting.

Background: I debated for four years of policy debate (Norfolk, NE), debated NFA-LD for the University of Nebraska (2 years), and previously the policy coach at Lincoln High (NE).

Affirmative: Do what you want, I am not fundamentally opposed to nontraditional affirmatives.

Negative: Run what you feel comfortable with. I think playing to your strengths makes for a better and more exciting round. I am a sucker for theory debates but ultimately want to see what debate you enjoy.

Kritiks: The only particular I have is that the alternative needs to be explained well. If I don't understand your alternative, I'm going to have a hard time voting off it.

General: I try my best to vote based off of what I hear in round. I have particular opinions about debate, but I will do my best to judge based off the round rather than my own preferences. I prefer analysis over card dumping. The more contextualized analysis is usually the more compelling to me. In general, I like it when you're genuine with your arguments. I want you to like them and I want to be able to like them. You spent a lot of time cutting these positions, do them justice.

One thing I particularly don't like (and will have a hard time voting on) are quick and dirty theory shots to win the round. An example might be an observation that says you, by definition, win the round or something. If that's what you want me to vote on, a clean extension is not sufficient. You need to invest time into arguments that you want me to vote on, these observations/theory points included. I will not vote on a theory pot-shot that you put a combined 45 seconds into. I need analysis as to why you want me to vote on that thing.

I have two rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.