I believe that debate is a communicative activity. First and foremost , make sure you are communicating with me. That means that you will be clear, you will avoid unnecessary jargon and obscure abbreviation. It means that you will be clear what you are going for and why. It means that you will engage the arguments for the other side and weigh yours against theirs. It means that if you want to practice your speed reading, save it for somebody else. If I can't get it down, it is NOT in the round.

I require persuasiveness. Use good, powerful language. Have a narrative. Frame your narrative . Impose/win your framing and use it to define the winning criteria for the round.

Please speak at an understandable pace - that can be fast or slow, but it must be understandable. Don't spread if you cannot annunciate (although in general, I disfavor spreading, at least for the purposes of calculating speaker points).

Please also tell me what you want me to do with the argument you're presenting - turn, extend, cross-apply etc. I will do my very best to follow what you're doing on my flow, but help me help you by telling me what you're doing (and also where you're at, i.e., please do signpost). Also, please weigh your argument - tell me why it matters, why I should vote for you on this point, why this argument wins the round for you, etc.

Do not neglect the framework of the debate, but also please do not waste time explaining to me why, for example, morality is a distinct and better value than justice. If your frameworks are genuinely the same, just stipulate to the same framework and move on. I will never vote for someone purely off framework arguments - they must be connected to impacts. That said, a well-crafted/argued framework will go far in setting you up for success on the impacts, and you shouldn't concede to an opponent's framework if it places you at a disadvantage on the contentious arguments.

I HIGHLY disfavor topicality/theory arguments that reek of strategy, rather than genuine educational or fairness concerns, but will give all arguments their appropriate weight (which, again, is work you should be doing!). On one particular point of fairness, obviously do not make new arguments in the 2AR, but I expect new arguments in the 1AR, and after that, any argument reasonably tied to an older one is fair game.

I will keep the time for my own purposes, but do not rely on me to signal to you, unless you expressly ask me to give you time signals beforehand. I will stop flowing after the time is called, unless you're reasonably completing a sentence.

Debate is a unique space for students' free speech, and I aim to give a wide berth to all arguments made. That said, as the adult in the room, I'm responsible for ensuring no one gets hurt and will not tolerate harmful conduct, including harmful language. Keep everything above board and collegial.

I do not care about your attire, whether you sit or stand, or whether you use a laptop or paper copies (although obviously if you access the Internet during the round, that is not good).

Greetings, by way of introduction, my name is Eric Emerson. eric.emerson@kinkaid.org (for speech docs).

I coach debate (policy, LD, World's, congress, oratory and public forum) at the Kinkaid school. I have actively served on the Board of the Houston Urban Debate League since 2008, the year of its inception, and have also directed the UTNIF.

As a judge, I evaluate arguments (claim, warrant, data and impact). I prefer arguments grounded in literature rather than regressive debate theory (take note LD). My preferences are flexible and can be overcome by persuasive, smart debaters.

I take notes, sometimes quite quickly. If I think you unclear, I will let you know in my facial expressions and on the occasion, hopefully rare, when I yell 'clear'.

If I find you/your arguments, unpleasant then your speaker points will reflect that. I disagree with judges who give out high speaker points to everyone. You gotta earn my points.

I am easily distracted and I prefer debaters to be both engaging and entertaining. If I appear distracted, it may be your fault.

Debate is a powerful educational tool that should be accessible to everyone. I try to approach all of my interactions with empathy and concern for others. I find unpleasant debates to be just that, unpleasant. I would ask that you avoid being unpleasant to your opponents, spectators, and me. Unpleasantness that threatens debate, to me, should be avoided.

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hamilton,+Chase

Debated for 4 years at Moore High School, and going into my third year of college debate at the University of Oklahoma.

Do whatever. It's come to this point where my paradigm is too many words and has no bearing on how I evaluate rounds. I'll give you a detailed 'roadmap' if you prefer.

My pronouns are they/them.

The following things below were written in March at 3 AM. This'll probably be confusing for you as it is for me, so defer to the words I said above.

Speed: I'm cool with it... given that clarity is always better than speed. This being said, you should emphasize certain words in your taglines and analytics to not only give you ethos, but establish certain things I should look for in your arguments. This being said, I would much rather you slow down on your taglines and distinguish them from your cards. Train effect for bonus speaks.

Kritiks: I've spent most of my debate career reading these arguments in a one-off style. Specificity is key especially to Affirmatives. Quote-pulling would be my favorite, as long as they are contextualized in your speeches before the 2NR. I've read a lot of literature whether it be cards, articles, or books, but that doesn't mean I know all of the nuances even in my best studies. I think the best strategy regardless is to win the framework debate on either team.

K AFFs: Do it. You certainly should have justifications for your method, such as reasons they're good or whether your scholarship is key for debate, the round, or even external forces. Topic ties would be better, especially to hedge back against framework teams. That being said, use case as offense.

Framework: Framework is the best example that contests two models of debate. Each team should have reasons or net-benefits as to why these models are better. What makes framework even more convincing as a strategy is to also have a Topical Version of the Affirmative (please give a plan text)... bonus if there's a solvency advocate. Otherwise win reasons as to why your model creates the best way to adjudicate fairness and/or education or why institutions like the USFG are good.

Dis-Advantages: I think generally as a negative strategy you should have a specific and/or contextual link strategy to the affirmative. That being said, general links will probably not suffice, unless the link goes conceded. Disads are most certainly the best offensive policy strategy to outweigh the advantages of the affirmative so please do the dying art: impact calculus.

Counterplans: Counterplans are pretty cool. You should always have a net-benefit (internal and/or external) so it gives me an offensive reason that I should vote Negative. Otherwise, it gives me more of a chance to vote Affirmative either on the permutation or solvency alone. I would much rather prefer functional competitiveness on a counterplan only because I have to evaluate policy options.

Topicality: I believe the same thing goes for topicality debates: why is your interpretation a better model of debate? How does(n't) it explode or over-limit? Do I default to competing interpretations or reasonability? This is definitely a debate more about tech than truth.

Tech > truth in most instances.

I will NOT ever vote for racism/sexism/transmisogyny/ableism/etc. You'll either lose the debate round or all of your speaks... or most likely both.

I debated for four years on the national circuit when in high school. Since then, I have coached LD at both the high school and college levels on the national circuit. I am a Ph. D student studying continental philosophy, so I will likely be familiar with your favorite kritik literature. I do not have a strong preference for the style of arguments you choose to make, (I am not a K-hack, for example) but only insist that you try to make them well. While I do not think "tab" judging is possible, I see it as a basically desirable goal (with some exceptions). I am fine with speed, but I think I am a little hard of hearing, so I might say "LOUDER" for you to speak up.

I default to a competing worlds or "offense/defense" paradigm. I also default to viewing theory as an issue of competing interpretations. I generally dislike truth-testing arguments. I am probably more open to kritiks of theory and the like than other judges, but am also perhaps more likely to vote for theory arguments than others. I like that performances are part of debate. I think the best parts of debate are when the debaters are able to use the debate space as a means to get the judge, opponent, and audience to deal with an issue that they really think is worth discussing (of course, this can just as well be a complicated discussion of policy issues as it can be a discussion of personal experiences).

I hedge all of the above claims with "I default to" or "generally..." because I see debate as a space for debaters to express themselves, not for judges to determine what the contents of those speech acts are supposed to be. Of course, this has its limits (I will not vote for arguments I take to be grossly offensive, or arguments which I think tangibly make debate an unsafe space, for example). But I largely think debaters should be allowed to debate in the style that they prefer and that the judge should play as minimal a role as possible.

I generally assign pretty high speaker points. If you got low speaker points, you were probably rude or offensive or very unclear. I see speaker points as a way of rewarding good behaviors (like communicating clearly, answering questions directly, being kind to your opponent) and punishing bad behaviors (like being deliberately unclear, uncharitable, or rude). So if you want good speaker points in front of me, I'd recommend just being kind to your opponent.

I'm Emily Nguyen and I competed in LD debate for four years at Alief Kerr HS. I've qualified for TFA twice, UIL Region twice, and NFL once. I've also instructed at Strake Jesuit's debate camp for the past 3 summers. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round, but here are my answers to frequently asked questions. 

Are you ok with speed?

I'm fine with speed, slow down for authors and taglines. I will say clear. Don't sacrafice clarity for speed. 

Are you ok with progressive arguments?

I'm ok any type of argumentation whether it be traditional or progressive. Any type of argument, however, needs to have some kind of claim, warrant, and impact for me to weigh it in the round. I'm not impressed with an abundance of buzzwords like "pre-fiat." Articulate your arguments with a claim, warrant, and impact and you will be fine. 

How do you feel about theory? 

My threshold for theory is high. I would discourage you to run theory unless there is actualy abuse in the round. I prefer to vote off of substance over theory. 

What arguments are you not ok with?

I'm not ok with morally offensive arguments or ones that put me in a position where "if I don't vote for you, I support the Holocaust." Outside of that, I'm fine with any type of argumentation. I will not vote based on my personal opinion of your argument. I may write on the ballot my opinion or suggstion as to how I think you can improve your argument, but my RFD will be based on solely what happened in the round and what your opponenet said. 

How do you award speaks?

I adjudicate speaks based on delivery and in round behavior. If I have to say clear and I see you are making a valid effort to either slow down or be more clear, I won't dock you on speaker points even if I have to say it a couple of times. If you continue to be unarticulant (usually after the 3rd time in one speech) and are rude to your opponenet I will dock points. 

Is there anything else I should know?

I'm big on organization throughout the speech. Give me a roadmap (I don't count roadmaps as part of your speech time) and if you choose not to follow it, signpost. If I don't know where to put your argument I'm probably not going to flow it. I'll get frustrated if you jump around the flow without signposting. 

I'm fine with flex prep is your opponent is. 

Don't just say "extend this argument/card" without giving a claim, warrant, or impact. I won't weigh the argument if you don't do that. 

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in the round! 

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

yes, add me to the email chain: claudiaribera24@gmail.com

I've worked/taught at camps such as utnif, stanford, gds, and nsd.

overall thoughts: I believe it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and extending some sort of impact framing in the debate because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is a place for you to do you. I will make my decisions based on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. This means I am unlikely to decide on debates based on my personal feelings about the content/style of an argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. It is up to the debaters to present and endorse whichever model of debate they want to invest in. Have fun and best of luck!

Case

-- Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part of every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.

Policy affs vs. K

-- I am most familiar with these types of debates. With that being said, I think the affirmative needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. There need to be contestations between the aff framing versus the K's power of theory in order to disprove it, as not desirable, or incoherent, and why your impacts under the plan come first. Point out the flaws of the kritiks alternative and make solvency deficits. Aff teams need to answer the link arguments, read link defense, make perms, and provide reasons/examples of why the plan is preferable/resolve material conditions. Use cross-x to clarify jargon and get the other team to make concessions about their criticism.

CP

-- CP(s) need to have a clear plan text and have an external net benefit, otherwise, I'm inclined to believe there is no reason why the cp would be better than the affirmative. There needs to be clear textual/function competition with the Aff or else the permutation becomes an easy way for me to vote. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better.

-- The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement the net benefit. The 1AR + 2AR needs to have some offense against the counterplan because a purely defensive strategy makes it very hard to beat the counterplan. I enjoy an advantage counterplan/impact turn strategy when it’s applicable. Generally, I think conditionality is good but I can be persuaded otherwise.

DA

-- Please have good evidence and read specific DAs. If you have a good internal link and turn case analysis, your speaker points will be higher. For the aff, I think evidence comparison/callouts coupled with tricky strategies like impact turns or internal link turns to help you win these debates.

Theory

-- I don't really have a threshold on these arguments but lean towards competing interps over reasonability unless told otherwise.

-- When going for theory, please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications.

-- When responding/going for theory, please slow down on the interps/i-meets.

Topicality

-- Comparative analysis between pieces of interpretation evidence wins and loses these debates – as you can probably tell, I err towards competing interpretations in these debates, but I can be convinced that reasonability is a better metric for interpretations, not for an aff. Having well-explained internal links to your limits/ground offense in the 2NR/2AR makes these debates much easier to decide, as opposed to floating claims without warranted analysis. A case list is required. I will not vote for an RVI on T.

T-FW

-- I prefer framework debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in the constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more toward competing interps than reasonability. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff teams are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. I am persuaded by standards like Clash and topic education over fairness being an intrinsic good/better impact.

K affs vs. T-Framework

-- There are a couple of things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your framework of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear are buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote to neg on presumption.

-- You need a counter-interp or counter-model of debate and what debate looks like under this model and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.

Kritiks

-- I went for the Kritik in almost every 2NR my senior year. I have been exposed to many different types of scholarship, but I am more familiar with some critical race theory criticisms. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism.

-- You should have specific links to affirmatives because without them you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact.

-- The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explaining the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is an important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually winning an impact-framing claim.

K vs. K

-- These debates are always intriguing.

-- Presumption is underutilized by the neg and permutations are allowed in a methods debate. However, it is up to the teams in front of me to do this. There needs to be an explanation of how your theory of power operates, why it can preclude your opponent’s, how your method or approach is preferable, and how you resolve x issues. Your rebuttals should include impact comparison, framing, link defense/offense, permutation(s), and solvency deficits.

Tricks/frivolous theory/skep

-- I am not the best at evaluating these types of arguments. It is important to extend the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument and WEIGH. Please slow down on analytics that are important, especially in theory debates.

I debated policy and PF at Magnolia high school and now i debate policy at the University of Houston and i work for Kinkaid. I would like to be on the email chain mnsanford@uh.edu

Do what you do best. I am most familiar with k debates but I think it's the burden of the judge to adapt to whatever the debaters want to do so i will vote on anything. ld rounds - please be very clear on the FW debate - have an explicit framing mechanism, explain what offense links etc. on theory, i don't like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate because I barely understand it. you may not like how i vote here unless you explain your argument to me like i don't know anything about debate

I use speaker points to reward smart strategies and arguments, high quality evidence, and generally making the debate an enjoyable experience. please be respectful to each other and please don't spread if you want me to understand everything you say. that being said, i rarely give points below 28.

(there's always a chance I forgot to update here, so check the date on the wiki to make sure this paradigm is current)

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Thompson%2C+Nathan

Nathan Thompson
Norman HS 14
University of Oklahoma 18
Updated 15 September 2018 sitting in the cafeteria before Greenhill round 1

Background

I debated for Norman High School (OK) for four years, graduating in 2014. I qualified to NSDA Nationals my junior and senior year, breaking twice and placing 24th my junior year. I primarily debated in Oklahoma and did not have the resources to travel. I have worked at the UTNIF LD camp as an instructor in 2015, 2017, and 2018. I like email chains - nltpeasley@gmail.com

Preferences

Speaking Preferences

• Speed is fine. I will clear you twice if I cannot understand you.
• THAT SAID, please do not fly through analytics or theory. I am decent at flowing but hardly amazing; if you hit the jets while reading a bunch of blipping theory args, I am going to get lost and miss stuff on the flow.
• I only vote on stuff I've successfully flowed.
• Indicate where your cards and arguments begin and end and slow down for authors and tags.

Framework

• Value and criterion are not necessary so long as you give me a way to decide the ballot.
• Label your framework arguments as what they are - I don't like tricky preempts or prestandards that become more than what they were in the constructive.

Theory/T

• I default to competing interps, although I find I've gotten friendlier to reasonability args over the years.
• I am probably not the judge to read a half-dozen theory shells in front of - you can do it if you think it's strategic or (obviously) to check abuse, but know that I might not like it if you overdo it.
• You must have absolute clarity on what your interpretation is, especially if the text that you give your opponent is different than the one you read in round.
• I will listen to potential abuse as an argument.
• I do not know what Nebel T is and am not about to learn now. If you read anything like that, don't expect me to know any overly-specific jargon.

RVIs

• I will evaluate RVIs like anything else.
• I will evaluate 2AR RVIs in response to new 2NR theory.
• The RVI needs offense back to a counter-interp.

CX

• CX checks abuse!
• CX checks abuse!
• CX checks abuse!
• That said, I'm not flowing CX, so don't lie about what's happening there after the fact...
• Don't lie or intentionally obscure your answers.
• I don't care whether you sit or stand, but be engaged.
• Flex prep is fine as long as it's agreed to by both debaters.

Kritiks

• I am not opposed to Ks, but I'm not super well-read on the literature base; make sure you're clearly explaining what your K means and does. Remember that there are scholars who study some of these K authors for literal decades to understand them properly; you can at least give a simplified explanation here. None of us are experts.
• Make sure your alt doesn't suck. I am not enthusiastic about voting on vague K alts that you can't explain to any level of detail.
• Have clear tags.
• Your K should still link to an ethical framework.

Extension Evidence

• New evidence should only respond directly to an objection to the original argument - do not post-date the original card and do not read new offense.

Weighing

• Weighing is the difference between bad debate and decent debate. Please do it early and often. Explain your clash and interactions with their arguments.
• Give overviews in 2NR and 2AR that frame the round.

How to Get Good Speaks

• Weigh early and often through the round. Demonstrate how your arguments interact with others on the flow.
• Demonstrate a clear strategy and understanding of the importance of arguments on the flow. Don't just go for everything or straight down the flow.
• Collapse in the 2NR/2AR! It is not worth either of our time for you to go for everything every round.
• Be clear in CX. Good strategies needn't be disguised.
• Don't argue with me about my decision. I will dock you speaks.

If you are clear, I will probably give between a 28 (borderline) and 30 (perfect, you've done something laudable, or I learned something). If you are not clear, I will probably give you between a 26 and a 27.5. Any points lower than 26 will be for punitive reasons (overt aggression or rudeness, problematic, etc).

Closing

I think debate has a lot of potential for good, but it's going to take effort from both of us to ensure that it's reached. Ask me questions after round if you want. Just don't argue about the decision.

I have been coaching debate for 37 years. I am not in the least bit progressive in any way.

My preferences are extremely traditional. I want the round to be slow and conversational; I view LD from the value/criterion approach, and policy arguments like plans, CP's, PICs, etc are out of bounds. I prefer a whole rez approach to the topic, and I expect the topic to be debated. I do not believe in disclosure theory or theory arguments in general. I also do not wish to evaluate or listen to identity politics and post-modern theory. I also do not endorse false norms like "flex-prep", performance, poetry, and "role of the ballot" arguments.

I am a pretty traditional judge, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate well done progressive stuff. As long as you run it well, and make sure you're running it because it's actually valuable to the round and makes sense, rather than just because you thought it'd be cool to run a K, I'm happy. I like focus on the v/c debate. Obviously clash is important. Speaking skill is important to me, again make sure you're spreading because you're good at it and because you need to , not just because you've heard that's what people do. I am pretty easy going, so don't stress. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!! Good luck!!

Jason Yang

Debated for Kinkaid for 3 years with Eric Emerson and Akhil Gandra as coaches, Katy Taylor for 1 year with Gay Hollis, Eric Beane, and Neel Yerneni as coaches.

I haven't judged for a while, so please do emphasize clarity/slowing down both in speaking style and generally framing the round so that someone not as familiar with all the new lingo/debate trends are will be able to understand.

As a debater I always liked the more detailed philosophies, so I’ve done that. However, if you do not have enough time, the sparknotes should be plenty of information.

Sparknotes (in order of importance):

• Speed- please go 65% speed because I’m bad at flowing and am a few years out of the activity. Esp important for analytics
• Advocacy texts and interpretations of any kind must be conversational speed.
• tags should be read slowly (close to conversational speed)
• There is such a thing as zero risk
• if theory is your strategy please read the theory section
• Please explain phil
• I like policy arguments and K’s that I can understand
• I will vote on disclosure theory but will not hack for it.
• I probably will not vote on new 2AR theory, kritiks, etc. But I might.
• Extensions only need to be as detailed as needed. For example, if you’re explaining why the case outweighs a DA, probably need more detail. But if the neg only contests Aff framework, you probably don’t have to explain the contention much.
• Will not vote for morally reprehensible arguments regardless of circumstance.

Hard and Fast Rules

• You must transport evidence you read to your opponent by some means (flash, email, pass pages) if they request it. Giving them your case during prep time or only let them read over the shoulder it does NOT count.
• You get 30 seconds to transport the documents to your opponent. In total. Afterwards it comes out of either prep time or speech time. Ideally, the flashing time for the 1AC is zero. If you can’t press save as + drag to USB/email within this time, you need to practice it. If your flashing requires more than save as + drag, then you have not completed compiling the speech doc which means you need more prep time.
• I won’t vote on args I didn’t catch or don’t understand by the end of the debate.
• Speech times are set- 6-3-7-3-4-6-3
• jasonyang19923@gmail.com for those who wish to add me to the speech doc chain.
• I vote for one debater.

Terms and Definitions

I’ve lost some debates because I had a different definition of what a term meant than a judge. So I’ll put down what I think a certain term means. Of course, you can alter the definitions in the debate- just make sure I know what they are instead of throwing out the jargon. If you don’t define the term for me, I will default to this definition. This list is not exhaustive, but these are definitions that come to mind that have caused misunderstandings.

• RVI: Reverse Voting Issue, if the responder to theory has net offense that links to a competitive counter interpretation, the responder of theory should win the debate. This necessitates that theory is drop the debater (or effectually drop the debater).
• Permutation as Test of Competition: Negative advocacies test the opportunity cost of the aff, and permutations means the advocacy goes away and the negative now defends something else (either another advocacy or the status quo).
• Permutation as Advocacy: If the affirmative proves the negative advocacy is not competitive (through a permutation), then the permutation becomes the new affirmative advocacy. This means that any internal net benefits to the counterplan (offense that the counterplan resolves) are now aff offense that can be weighed against other neg offense.
• Conditional: The negative may “kick” (not advocate for) the advocacy under any circumstance.
• Dispositional: The negative may “kick” the advocacy under a given condition.
• Unconditional: The negative cannot “kick” the advocacy under any conditions. This will be their advocacy for the rest of the debate unless it is proven to be not competitive to the aff.
• Truth Testing Paradigm: The affirmative’s burden is to prove that the resolution (or plan text) a true statement, while the negative tries to prove that the resolution (or aff plan text) a false statement.
• Comparative Worlds Paradigm: The affirmative defends an advocacy, the negative defends an advocacy (advocacies). Whichever advocacy has more net offense wins. The affirmative advocacy should be an example of the resolution.
• Severance: When the affirmative no longer advocates the plan specified at the beginning of the round.
• Reasonability: Negative can win on theory with defense. I think Arjun Tambe’s conception of reasonability (that he got from Christian Tarsney) is pretty good: “presumably, if it would be bad to let someone get away with abuse, it would be about equally bad to punish them when they weren’t abusive, so if it’s less than 50 percent likely that they abused you, my default assumption is that theory is not a sufficient path to the ballot.” This definition is probably the most prone to change in the debate since there are so many different conceptions of reasonability.

General

• Debate is comparative- this means both debaters should weigh in addition to winning individual arguments. This is true for every kind of debate- phil, theory, substantive, etc.
• Debates are also won and lost on the top level framing- isolate the key issues and use the speech to explain why you’ve won them. Line by line is excellent at winning arguments in isolation, but that’s rarely sufficient to win the whole debate because you’re probably not winning every single arg.
• Cx as prep isn’t a thing for me.
• I will evaluate embedded clash when I recognize it, but you would be best served to make the connections explicit for those that are less obvious and/or crucial for winning the debate.

Policy Arguments

• PLANS: Great. That said, I am not afraid of voting on “plans bad” or “Nebel/Generics T”.
• Counterplans: Go for it. I have less experience with complicated process counterplans or whatever. Regardless, you should explain what it does and why it solves the case. A good 2nr overview is say “Here is the advantage, here is why the CP solves it”
• Disadvantages: Sure. The affirmative would benefit a lot from proving why the internal links are bad with analytics, because they usually are. I think Disad+Case debates are the most interesting type of policy debates.
• Lots of people are reading Da’s that are like 30s and none of the cards have warrants… Affirmatives should point this out
• Turns case arguments are really awesome esp when specific to the plan
• Solvency advocate theory doesn’t make much sense to me on its own, they just seem like solvency arguments. However, a solvency advocate can be a litmus test to determine whether or not a process counterplan or a PIC was predictable.

Kritiks

“K affs”

• Pretty predisposed to vote on framework if your affirmative has nothing to do with the topic. You don’t necessarily have to defend USFG, but please talk about the resolution. Otherwise I have no predisposition as to whether your aff is an instrumental/100% defense of the resolution or not.
• Creative approaches to the topic do count as talking about the resolution.
• Against debaters that are establishing violations for policy framework please do not be evasive.

Links:

• Contextualize the link to the aff- don’t just read the state link every single time and just reread the tag from your policy backfiles in the 2NR. I think the strongest links have good evidence and include quotes from the 1AC speech, CX, etc. that demonstrate the link.

Impacts:

• I feel people underutilize impact turns. Obvi do not say stuff like racism good, but cap good, heg/militarism good, is great.

Alternatives:

• Negatives should do comparison- how do the DA’s to the perm outweigh the net benefits?
• What does the alt look like, and how does it solve the links? That’ll make it a lot easier to vote for it. Even if your aff is just plain old rejection- questions like who rejects the aff, what distinguishes this from the status quo, etc. are all still relevant. If I have to ask myself what the alternative is or does at the end of the debate, you lost.

Framing:

• The presumption that kritiks are always “pre fiat” and therefore excludes the aff doesn’t make sense to me. This distinction should be explained not only generally, but also in the context of the affirmative.
• Theory vs K is kind of a wack debate. To make it less so, you should try to make your warrants as specific as possible.
• I am usually very confused when people kick the alt and claim that the K independently turns the aff. To my understanding, the alt generates uniqueness for the link/impact. If you do decide to pursue this strategy, explain to me why you don’t actually need an alt.

Ethical Framework

• I’m not going to pretend to be the best judge for these kinds of debates. You can fix my lack of understanding by explaining the phil like I’m a child. This includes even common frameworks like Ripstein equal outer freedom, Rawls Veil, etc.
• I will default to being “epistemically confident”, simply because that’s the norm at the time. This means that I will only use the winning framework to evaluate offense. I can be easily persuaded to use epistemic modesty.
• Lots of frameworks are impact justified- point that out and explain why that’s bad.
• I have no idea why RoB arguments should preclude a standard just because it has the words Role of the Ballot in front of it. This should be explained.
• Reasons to prefer a framework should be weighed against eachother: for example, the affirmative FW is better for actor specificity, while the negative FW is better bc it links to a superior meta ethic. Which moral theory is more likely to be true?

Tricks

I’ll vote on them (unhappily). Innovative spikes are a plus.

Theory

• Defaults:
  • Competing Interpretations
  • Drop the Argument on Theory
  • No RVI
• I don’t really care if your theory argument is shell format as a “new off” or just “x is a voting issue” tagged as an argument against the counterplan etc.
• If your theory is clearly trying to abuse competing interpretations, the threshold for responses goes way down. For those that read this kind of theory, remember your opponent can win on zero risk of the interp under competing interpretations.
• Theory debates need tons of weighing, and not just “ground outweighs predictability because we need ground before we can predict it”, but weighing that accounts for your strength of link to the standards. For example: perhaps lambos are worth more than a ford focus, but the same cannot be said for the driving wheel of a Lambo.
• Competing Interpretations means offense defense paradigm. Other shenanagins like the answerer has to write down the CI, has to have a CI, should be justified.
• If the answerer does not have a counter interpretation, I will assume that it means the opposite of the interpretation.
• Unsure what drop the argument means on theory arguments concerned with advocacy like spec- it can mean drop solvency, drop the whole 1AC flow (so the aff can still win on link turns to the NC), re-evaluate the plan under the new interpretation, etc.
• I think conditionality is good but that contradictions are bad.
• Unsure what drop the argument means on theory arguments concerned with advocacy- it can mean drop solvency, drop the whole 1AC flow (so the aff can still win on link turns to the NC), re-evaluate the plan under the new interpretation, etc.
• I am somewhat persuaded by the argument that goes something along the lines of “It would have been just as hard to give the 1AR if I replaced the CP with a DA or a few case turns. Condo bad devolves to multiple arguments bad.”

Topicality

• I think that topicality is more than just tech, it requires a vision of what the topic should look like through your interpretation.
• It would be cool if your interp/counter interp was very specific to the topic for example, providing caselists, evidence when appropriate from the topic literature to quantify limits or ground arguments, etc.
• Semantics vs pragmatics I do not really have a default here.
• But debaters should make clear the implications of what it means if you win semantics vs pragmatics: does semantics first mean the affirmative must have a counter definition? Does it mean the definitions debate always comes first?
• Drop the arg doesn’t make much sense here and should be specified- does this mean we drop the 1AC piece of paper? Does it mean we re-evaluate the interp? Can the aff read a new advocacy? Drop the debater?
• Just like for theory, reasonability should have a brightline that is clearly explained.
• Again, a caselist would be great.
• Random pet peeve - try not to call theory topicality and vice versa.

Speaks

• 28.0 is average
• Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, persuasiveness, good CX, etc). I do realize it’s kind of arbitrary, sorry about that.
• Lower limit is a 27.0, less than that means you did something severely unsettling.

Bonuses

• Not speaking incomprehensibly quickly
• Good CX
• Good overviews
• Using less prep time (if more prep = better speech, that will probably result in better points than the time you save)
• Using less speech time (same stipulation as above)
• Unique arguments
• Good disclosure practices (I will check wikis before or during the debate)
• Fast speech doc transfers