I debated for 3 years at George Mason University, and have judged several high school tournaments. The GMU tournament (11/8/19-11/10/19) will be my first time judging college. Since I didn't debate this topic, don't assume I know literally anything about it.

Feel free to run whatever you want, as long as you are able to explain it thoroughly. Even if the other team completely drops an argument, I will struggle to vote on it if there is no coherent story to it. I flow on paper so be sure to slow down enough on analytics for me to keep up with you. Otherwise, if you can spread, feel free to. If you are unclear I will yell "clear" one time. After that, I just won't flow you if I can't understand you. Clarity and efficiency should take priority over speed.

I give speaker points based on speech organization, clarity, and overall demeanor. If you're funny your speaks will probably benefit, if you're rude they will probably suffer.

DO NOT clip cards in front of me. I do follow along, I will notice, and I will be very unhappy. Depending on tournament policy, that will likely mean I will call you out, strike the cards you clipped, and lower your speaks.

I do my best to come into rounds with a blank slate, but there is one exception. Do not say things that are blatantly bigoted/sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic etc. These are bad arguments that only serve to make the debate space unsafe and hostile.

You can stop prep before you email/flash your speech, but don't take an annoying amount of time to do so.

Please put me on the email chain: egb2491@gmail.com

Have fun.

Buddy Lets Talk

Being a Judge is a real power trip for me.

Also don't mind my facial expressions or head movements, if I shake my head don't think that I disagree with what you are saying, It's probably me trying to stay focus. Same with me nodding my head like yeah.

Speaker Points:

Rule #1: Be respectful to your opponent a little sass here and there is fun but don’t harass/insult your opponent. This is a competitive environment, not a hostile one. Disrespectful behavior will be frowned upon.

Rule #2: Be Clear. I am fine with speed but I need you to speak clearly so I can flow your arguments. Be especially clear on the name of your authors. If I can’t understand what you are saying I will yell CLEAR, if I missed the author’s name I will yell AUTHOR. I will only yell 3 times so be wary.

Rule #3: Debate is a journey and a journey is helped by signpost and roadmaps. Could you imagine trying to find this building without any signpost or roadmaps, it would be chaos.

Rule #4: Explain your arguments to me as if I accidentally stumbled into your round on my way to flag football. In other words do your best to make sure I understnd the arguments your making and then do better just to be safe. But that doesn't mean you should repeat yourself because I will be annoyed and then frown.

Speaker points are scaled to whatever division you're competing in. So what I rank high in novice will be around average in JV and below average in Varsity

Everyone starts at 28

30 – Play of the Game

29 – Hay that’s pretty good, I think you deserve to break

28 - You did a good job but there is room for improvement

27 – It was hard to understand what you were saying, spend some time practicing. OR you were disrespectful to your opponent.

26 – You were disrespectful AND I thought you were a bad speaker.

25 - I will tell you at the end of the round why I am giving you this, in all probability I won’t give anyone a 25.

Policy:

If you are doing an email chain I would like to be added

make sure all your arguments have clearly articulated links, internal links, and impacts and by the rebuttal speeches, I would like impact analysis.

When you extend authors be sure to extend what the warrants to the cards are not just the taglines since I probably won't remember what was highlighted in the cards.

Evaluation: I default to a util calculus when looking at the round unless you give me another way to evaluate the round, you know ROB or a framing contention. (these args should be impacted as well) And I will probably look to the framing debate first unless it's lame and then I'll go back to util.

Topicality:

I've been in my share of T debates and I will probably err to the AFF on these unless the aff doesn't do a lot of work on it or messes it up. But if you go for T in the 2NR you have to give me a whole story about why your interp is good, how the aff harms debate, and what the aff could have done.

Theory: I'll just copy what my coach wrote.

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. One or two conditional options is probably good for negative flexibility, any more is pushing it a little. Granted, conditionality theory is all debatable. The rest of theory you will have about 1% risk of convincing me they are voting issues.

CP: Ya I'm down for that make sure you clearly explain what your CP does in the 2NC.

DAs: Oh YA I'm really down for that. When your debating against a DA offense is a pretty good thing to have, but I will believe in 100% no link args and defensive args against internal links. DAs can have try or die args but I will be weighing the probability of the DA between the probability of whatever the aff went for to which I will take extended defensive args into account.

Ks - I mostly did K debate in college so I am good with any type of K. Make sure to explain why the alt is preferable to the plan and why I should weigh the K first.

Walk me through it, I'll find it more persuasive you can explain the K yourself rather than reading new cards on it.

K Affs: your aff must do something, have an advocacy and some solvency, and it would be nice if you engaged the topic in some way. Walk me through your args, be clear on them. The rest I will just put what my coach wrote

I vote on who wins the argument so framework v. critical aff that engages the topic is still an option for the negative. There is nothing worse than figuring out what the affirmative does in the 1AR-2AR.

Individual survival strategies are not predictable or necessarily debatable in my opinion (i.e. "This 1AC is good for the affirmative team, but not necessarily a method that is generalizable).

REMEMBER – Have fun.

email- seanmanofaction@gmail.com

FOR LD

Judging:

You need Framing – tell me what I should be looking for in the round, and I will always look this debate first before I evaluate anything else

For most LD debaters that means a Value and a Criterion

For those that read Ks, skateboard and eat Go-Gurt that means a Roll of the Ballot

For those that read plans – tell me why util is good

And for those special people that read plans that solve structural violence why is that the most important issue

If you don’t give me some kind of framing or don’t have a debate about what framing I should prefer, you are in an uphill battle and probably won't win.

On the contention level:

Have some clash – address the warrants or impacts to the each argument

It will only help you if you give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents.

You should also take some time to give a brief overview of your arguments, preferably at the beginning of each speech.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold for theory

Don’t debate theory unless there is actual abuse going on in the debate, you need to give me a full story how what they are doing is harmful to debate.

I have never seen a good definition debate and I don’t expect to see one.

Don’t initiate a theory debate unless you are 100% confident that it is something you can win the round off of.

If you claim that your opponents evidence was miscut/tampered with, give me proof and I will look at it the evidence in question.

And that’s all folks, feel free to ask me questions before or after the round.

P

Background:

I currently debate policy at George Mason University. Prior to that I debated public forum for two years and had some competitive success. I want to be on email chains, my email is guzman.c.anthony@gmail.com. Also, feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the round.

General:

Argumentation- Read whatever you want, I'm not going to on face reject an argument (exceptions include things like "racism good"). An argument is a claim and a warrant. A good argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I will not evaluate a claim without warrants. Lastly, I prefer depth over breadth.

Clarity is key- This is a communication activity. I would prefer slowing down for the purpose of persuasion and ethos than slurring just to throw in that last card you probably do not need. Try and make your transitions between arguments/pages clear. If I didn't vote for you on an argument you thought you made, you either weren't clear enough when you made it so it's not on my flow, or you didn't explain it enough. 

Extensions- You should be making warranted extensions of your arguments in every speech that are contextualized to your opponents arguments. I will give little to no weight to tag line extensions. I will also be unimpressed if you keep repeating the same generic overview of your arguments in every speech. 

Tech vs. Truth- This is circumstantial. I generally reward technical concessions; that being said, I also think a silly argument can be demolished with analytics. 

Lincoln-Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion- I see the V/VC debate as a lens through which I should examine the case debate. Winning this aspect of the debate doesn't mean you win the round. I vote for the team that best solves for the V/VC through their contentions. 

Contentions- Read them, extend them, and please remember to have impacts. I don't care if its nuclear war or the perpetuation of structural violence as long as I have impacts to vote on at the end of the debate. Also remember to do impact comparison (usually in the context of probability, timeframe, and/or magnitude) on why your impact outweighs the your opponents impacts. 

Counterplans- I won't reject them on face. I find that CPs in general are good for Neg ground, but I am willing to reject a CP or a team on theory arguments about why the specific CP that was read is abusive. I have a a low threshold for voting on condo is bad in LD so you are better of reading them as unconditional. 

Kritiks - I won't reject them on face. Don't assume I have read your lit base. I won't vote on a K if the alt still has not been clearly explained at the end of the debate. See CP section for my views about condo.                                                                           

Theory- Have an interpretation, articulate the link to your argument (a.k.a. the violation), and impact out how it affects fairness and education in and outside of the round. If you want it to be a reason to reject the team, you have to impact it and explain how it impacted the round (made it impossible to win) and/or establishes a bad precedent for debate. Keep theory arguments organized. Remember to slow down a bit because there's no air time for cards.

Policy:

Topicality - I default to competing interpretations so whatever is the best version of the topic wins. I care very little about what government definitions or topic framers think, especially compared to arguments about debatability (for either side). Don't think reasonability is a good argument. Lists and examples are key to a good T debate: What abusive aff's do they justify, what aff ground do they still have in their respective area, what neg arg's that are omitted, what core aff's are mooted if their interpretation is chosen, etc. Then the lists need to be impacted, so I can answer the "so what?" question of x argument being excluded or x aff being included. Do impact comparison i.e. limits vs. aff flex. Effects and extra T could just be reasons to reject the nontopical parts of the aff (I could be persuaded otherwise), but negative teams would be wise to point out the ways that the aff fails to solve/function logically without those parts. Lastly, I default to weighing topicality before any other theory in the round.

Framework - Debate is a game and evaluating consequences matters when forming an ethical stance (This can be debated and if you win it on the flow I am amendable to change but it is my default setting)   Limits impact is the most persuasive, because it has both in and out of round implications. Followed by topic education good arguments. Topical version doesn't have to solve the aff- just has to provide an inroads to talk about the aff's topic matter. Framework is a procedural- not an advocacy. You can't be stuck with it. If you're a K aff, you're best off just going for the impact turns.

Case - Impact defense is more important than anything else. Presumption can be a thing. Disads on case are fun. So are impact turns. 

Counterplans - Slowdown when reading CP texts. You need to disprove perms well or at least point out why the world of only the CP is better than the world of the perm. If nobody says anything about it, I’m willing to kick the CP for the neg because of implicit assumptions of it being conditional. But I could definitely be persuaded that presumption flips aff/the neg should get one world in the 2NR.

Disadvantages - Most familiar with this type of debate. 2NC/1NR Impact/Turns case overviews are preferable. Link typically precedes uniqueness but can be convinced that uniqueness overwhelms the link. In many instances, smart analytics are just as effective, if not more so, than cards. There can be 0 percent risk of a link. Start impact calculus as early as possible.

Kritiks - Don’t assume I am familiar with the literature for your specific K. Most Ks are explained in overly-complicated ways. Don't assume that saying words that end in “-ology” is an automatic reason to vote neg. You have to justify what that means in the context of the debate, and why it should be valued. I prefer Ks that have specific links to the topic or plan action significantly more than Ks that have state or omission links. If  I don't have a clear idea of what the Alt actually does to solve your link arguments at the end of the debate, I’m going to have an incredibly high threshold for voting on the K. Clear explanation of an alt is required for you to win these kinds of debates in front of me. Persuasive aff arguments revolve around attacking the alternative, answering root cause/link turns solvency, and winning the case. Persuasive aff arguments revolve around attacking the alternative, answering root cause/link turns solvency, and winning the case. The best neg arguments are the classic tricks – root cause, value to life, serial policy failure, etc.

Theory - Slow down on theory. If it comes down to reasons that the specific CP or K is a voter, I view it as a reason to reject the arg and not the team. Otherwise, I default to theory being a reason to reject the team.  I'm fine with giving the neg 2 conditional worlds and the squo, beyond that I have a lower threshold for voting on condo.  If a new aff is read, I have a very high threshold for voting on condo regardless of how many advocacies were read.  Again, these are inclinations. Nothing is set in stone and I can be persuaded either way.

Public Forum:

Speaks:

Stolen from Patrick McCleary

“I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29.5 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29-29.5 is a speaker award, 28.5-29 is good/should be clearing, 28.1-28.5 is on the cusp of clearing, 28 is average, 27.5 is below average, 27 needs work. Any lower and you are probably either in the wrong division or did something offensive. Given what I've seen from people who compile the data on this stuff, this seems to be somewhat close to the community norm.”

Note: I will adjust this scale somewhat to reflect tournament/division norms.

Put me on your email chains: Rich.kaye12@gmail.com

4 Years policy debate at Mason

One year coaching at Mason

Before you pref me, I should make you aware that I have done zero topic research or judging on this topic.

General opinions about debate:

Tech over truth- if it's a bad argument, you should've answered it.

However, this doesn't mean cards over logic- if you have a piece of evidence that belongs in the trash, don't be surprised if the other team wins that argument without evidence and just making logical arguments.

Debate is a communications activity. If I didn't vote for you on an argument you thought you made, you either weren't clear enough when you made it so it's not on my flow, or you didn't explain it enough.

Debate is a game. Do with that what you will.

Read whatever you want, I'm not going to on face reject an argument (exceptions include things like "racism good"- don't do that)

Try and make your transitions between arguments/pages clear - I don't want to miss something you say because you sounded at the same speed for 9 minutes of your speech.

I've been told I make lots of expressions - and this includes when I'm judging debates. Do with that information what you will.

Feel free to email me with questions about my philosophy or after any debate I judge you.

T

Default to competing interps

I need more than just a neg caselist- what's topical under you interp? What DAs/CPs don't you get? Why do you deserve getting them. This is super important when I don't know what this topic has been like.

Heavy emphasis on impact calc is very much preferred. Do limits outweigh aff innovation? Is precision more important than overlimiting?

Too little evidence comparison happens in T debates generally, so try your best to fight that trend.

SPEC args are a non starter as a voting issue unless you ask in CX and they just don't answer, or if the 2AC just decides to cheat a lot. If you read it for CP competition purposes, that's obviously fine and probably necessary.

T vs K affs

Debate is a game- should the emphasis be on fairness, or whether or not the game has some sort of educational value beyond this space- that's to be debated, but my inclination is towards it needs to be fair to work and can still be educational.

Framework is the best option- Fairness or Delib, doesn't matter to me. Do what you want. I prefer procedural fairness though.

Limits impact is the most persuasive, because it has both in and out of round implications. Followed by health care education good arguments.

If you're a K aff, you're best off just going for the impact turns- you're not going to win you meet, and you probably won't win that your CIP provides enough limits in comparison to the neg's version of the topic.

Topical version doesn't have to solve the aff- just has to provide an inroads to talk about the aff's topic matter

Framework is a procedural- not an advocacy. You can't be stuck with it.

***NOVICES*** should have to be a topical defense of the resolution. Very persuaded by a "T debating good for novice debate" standard.

DAs

My favorite

Logical presses against the DA = carded presses against the DA, if it's a good argument.

Just going for impact d against the case or the DA at the end of the debate is probably not the spot you want to be in. If the aff still solves/causes a massive impact, even if it doesn't cause nuclear war, it could still turn the case/da.

Framing arguments like link determines the direction of uniqueness are helpful for me when judging these debates.

block nuance justifies new 1AR nuance- this doesn't mean "oh, they said turns the case, i'll read the no diversionary wars card the 2AC didn't get to" - but you still need to make the arg why they don't get to do that.

Politics DAs- these tend to be a lot about spin, so I'll try and default more to how you spin the evidence as to opposed what it actually says, if it's reasonable. If your card doesn't even come close to what you're trying to spin it as, you'll be in a rougher spot.

CPs

PICs without literature to substantiate them are bad. Having literature makes them marginally better.

Process/Agent are probably bad, but if that's your jam, go for it. I'll vote aff on theory as a reason to reject the team, or as a justification for the perm, or a kick the arg. Whatever happens in the debate. My default though is reject the team.

Ks

I never went for one.

I tend to lean aff on question of the roll of the ballot (the aff gets to weigh the plan) and ethical frames like util. But that doesn't mean I won't vote neg on alternative views of debates/ethics. I actually have voted on those arguments often when judging high school debate.

The less specific your K is to the topic, the worse position you're going to be in. Topic links are almost a necessity when going for the K in front of me.

You're tied to what you say. Econ DA-Cap K in the same 1NC probably won't fly.

PIKs are bad - see comments about process/agent CPs in that section

If your alt is to "do nothing" or I don't have a clear idea of what it actually does to solve your link arguments, you're not going to be in a good spot. Clear explanation of an alt that actually does something is required for you to win these kinds of debates in front of me.

If you're the aff in these debates, watch out for the classic K tricks (fiat is illusory, etc)- I don't want to vote you down on arguments like that, but I will if you drop them. Also make sure you don't lose sight of your aff- yes, read cards, but also remember the thesis of your aff probably impact turns/link turns the K in some way- if not, you can go for whatever your normal strategy is. But contextualization of impacts goes a long way towards my ballot.

Case outweighs is the best strategy vs Ks

I am, admittedly, bad at understanding K debate sometimes- so don't expect me to know all the buzzwords that your favorite author says. Make sure you actually explain some of the concepts in a way that's easy to understand- do not expect me to just know instantly what you're talking about. Likely I don't. You can save us both the trouble by debating your K at a more basic level. So I can understand you and not be frustrated that I dont, and you for not losing because I didn't understand half of the 2NR because they were debating their K at the level of a philosopher.

Theory

Condo beyond 2 is iffy, beyond 3 you better be really good at condo. Unless the aff is new. In that case, have at it.

Same things that apply to T apply to this- competing interps, impact calc, etc.

Theory is a reason to reject the team unless someone says otherwise

Theory doesn't outweigh topicality

These debates are very ticky tacky, so please go slower than your card reading speed- if you're going so fast that I'm missing arguments, it really doesn't matter that you're going so fast- because you're making arguments that won't get evaluated.

nickkdebate@gmail.com

I've been out of debate for two years and as an old washed up debater my opinions are probably less firmly held than they once were. I was a varsity policy debater for George Mason University. I did K debate for the last two years, mostly in the realm of ‘high theory’ Baudrillard, and Deleuzian surveillance, disability, and some feminist themes.

Don't let that dissuade you from reading policy, I'll listen to and vote for most anything if you win the debate. My degree is in international relations, my thesis was on the relationship between corruption and the proliferation of WMDs. I also interned for in Congress. I understand IR theory, its fine if you want to defend a big stick heg debate or any other policy techniche.

One thing that's definitely changed since I debated - please no handshakes

Philosophy:

01. Just Do It™
Don't start with what I want to hear. Do you. If you win the argument, my opinion is irrelevant. I'd much rather hear a good debate about what you want to talk about than a thousand bad rereadings of the things that I enjoy. Just do it well. I once called thinking "wonder" and convinced more than a hundred judges that it was a unique and revolutionary alternative. Nothing is impossible if you have arguments to back it up. Just keep your head up, you'll be alright.

02. "Gory, gory, What a hell of a way to die!"
Clash: Not doing it is the fastest way to make these rounds ugly real quick. Don't shy away from clash, embrace it, and fill it with warrants. The very tired line about two ships passing in the night has some value - If you don't clash I have essentially carte blanche to make a decision. You may not like that decision. Easy solution: don't make me do that calculus. Close doors.

03. A true thing poorly expressed is a lie
It doesn't matter what your argument is, if you can communicate it to me and the other team cannot then you are ahead. I don't care how fast you spread, its strategic up until you cannot communicate intelligible words while spreading, at which point I can't flow and you'll probably lose as a result. Speed is good, but clarity first always.

04. “Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!”
There are rules. Speeches have fixed times. Holding up one round holds up the whole tournament, I'm not doing that. I will always flow, and it will be the sole determinant of the ballot. This is non-negotiable.

05. “Tools! We need tools! Mechanical and philosophical instruments!”
I largely debated "high theory" in my own career. In practice, I find that I vote for framework more often than critiques because K teams mess up the "policy tricks" as much as policy teams do the reverse. Framework teams – I'll vote for you, but not just because the other team took away your DA's. I want to hear why you think whatever is making debate less predictable, fair, etc.. is important so that there can be a debate about whether or not those benefits outweigh or are outweighed. I approach all arguments introduced with extreme skepticism and suspicion.

06. Smile, smile, smile x infinity..
If you're about to pref me to talk over your opponents with some real edgy Baudrillard blocks you found online: I think the value in 'high theory' authors and arguments is lost when people overdetermine the difficulty and complexity of the arguments themselves and dwell in the cult of personality. Good high theory debating is the process of making complex arguments accessible to people not invested in the literature, and applying it through examples that apply to the round. I'm not going to assume your arguments fit the ivory tower stereotypes. In exchange I ask that you don't live up to them.

07.
I don't automatically vote down teams making arguments termed by others 'stupid' or 'offensive'. Evil seduces when labeled taboo and off-limits. Moreover, I'm uncomfortable voting for someone who can't articulate why something offensive, dangerous, or stupid should not be affirmed. That doesn't mean speaks won't be affected.

08.
Speaker points are an entirely subjective and arbitrary assessment, and 'ranges' are not an exact science. Act as you choose, my points will reflect my feelings on said actions. I only give exceptionally low speaks if you do something ethically messed up. If your tournament uses NDT/CEDA 30 point maximums, then my speaks are probably a little above that average. I would say use good judgement generally applies, however there are a few things that some people think are acceptable with which I disagree and will punish speaks. The primary two- I will not evaluate arguments comparing someone's arguments to sexual assault. I think those debates are anti-educational, and only risk harm to everyone involved. I also will not evaluate genocide denial, for similar reasons. If you decide to read either, expect to find your speaker points capped at 10% of the tournament max.

If you find any of these stipulations objectionable, I respectfully request the quiet dignity of your strike to the alternative.

3.5 years policy debate | George Mason University
3 years mock trial | First Colonial High School

(1) THE OVERVIEW:

I think debate is a game with tangential benefits that vary from debater to debater. Do what you do best and what you enjoy, and I will do my best to offer a thoughtful, cogent, and minimally biased decision that is based on the arguments and evidence presented.

(2) PARADIGMS BY DEBATE TYPE:

(2.a) Policy/CX

(2.a.1) How I Evaluate Rounds:
- I will begin with framework. Usually this will merely be me determining if the aff gets to weigh reasonable theoretical implementation of a plan vs. a competitive alternative. At this stage, I will look to role of the ballot, aff/neg interps, theory, procedurals, and other voting issues (including presumption).
- I will then try to list each team's offense based on harms caused or solved. This could be constituted by advantages the aff solves, case turns, internal link turns, straight turns, and all of that good stuff.
- Lastly I weigh each team's offense against the round's framework and do the maths.
- This usually produces a winning team. After I have a preliminary vote, I will go through all of the arguments made by the 'losing' team to see if any of them complicate the initial decision that I have written.

(2.a.2) Some technical disclaimers:
- If the affirmative reads a few advantages, and the neg never substantively contests them (possibly because it is a K that attempts to exclude fiat), I will tolerate minimal extension of the affirmative including even if the internal link scenario is not explained up through the 1ar. This is true about the core advantages of the aff, not random cards the 1ac reads. If you read Zanotti in your framing contention, you do not get to wait until the 2ar to explain the aff as a heuristic.
- I default to an offense/defense paradigm unless specified to do otherwise.
- I will kick the CP/alt if condo is never mentioned or is won by the neg AND I think the DA/K outweighs.
- I will not vote on IVIs tied to the identity of individual debaters/the school where you are from/etc. unless there is a substantial link tied to something that happened in that specific round. I believe each round is a fresh start, and debate should be a place for testing of ideas and competitive engagement with respectful and respected opponents. Feel free to call your opponents out if you think they did something crappy, and my expressions will probably tell you where I stand on their behavior.

(2.a.3) Personal prefs/reasons to strike me:
- I generally like K’s. In summary, if you read a K aff or a K on the neg that you understand and are passionate about, I will be happy, and if it is one that is well-executed with contextual and specific links and a crystallized alternative or advocacy, I will be very happy.
- However, this does not mean that I am going to conspire against your policy aff or planked advantage CP. I often went for framework, I'll boogie with a good clash of civs debate or a scrappy plan-plan solvency deficit debate, and I will vote on your heg/cap good turns.
- Don’t read a K you do not know in front of me if you want to win the round. I will appreciate the effort, but I will give you average speaks and drop you.
- I am very partial to a good cross-x and will reward such with more speaker points. If you obviate, lie, or do other sneaky stuff during cross-x, your speaker points will suffer.
- I will give you +.5 speaker points if you draw a graph or write a function, and correctly utilize it to make an argument.

(2.a.4) You can have my flow:
- Just ask, but do not expect me to retain documents for long after the decision is given. No givesies backsies.

(2.a.5) Long Version with all the juicy details:

(2.a.5.i) Kritiks
-They should have a consistent thesis, contextual links, and an alternative that resolves said links.
-I am probably familiar with your lit base. But the burden is on you to explain it.
-“ontology turns the aff” is not an argument. I am willing to vote on ontology or theories of power but I need historical or empirical contextualization (read: examples) connected to a metaphysical claim about the world.
-Aff vs. K: you have an affirmative, with (hopefully) tight link chains and solvency advocates, try not to forget that. While they are spewing out scraps of whatever shite the French took after May 1968, it turns out that they often forget to say why the aff is uniquely bad. I am very convinced by contextualization out of the generic K goo and world comparisons vs. the alternative.
-Also, and this is true for both sides, do not underestimate the framework debate.

(2.a.5.ii) Kritikal Affs
-Your aff need not be a government policy nor have a plan text but should be some combination of a) an instrumental action by an actor, b) why its education/focus/reorientation is important, and c) why it is inaccessible through resolution debate (in sum: do a meaningful thing and topic links).
-Being in the direction of the topic is qualifiably better than just "productivity bad" and will grant you appreciably more wiggle room on T. If you color/watch naruto/play video games I will probably have fun and give you decent speaks but you probably won’t get the ballot.
-"A Ha!" 2ARs/Tricks are less and less impressive to me than a thoughtful 1AC thesis tested in the fires.
-If you care about it, I will too. If you're reading a K aff just for strategy, you're reading it for the wrong reasons.

(2.a.5.iii) Topicality/FW
-I default to competing interps.
-Topicality needs an impact.
-Fairness seems like an impact. Explain why.
-Vs. the K: I find myself increasingly persuaded by arguments like the TVA. Policy focus is boring but skills are cool. Creative topic education DAs are also cool.
-Novices should read a plan text in the first half of their respective competitive year.

(2.a.5.iv) Disads
-Read them, win on them. I am very pleased with case specific disads that interact with the aff’s internal links and turn the aff on a deeper level than "econ collapse turns warming".

(2.a.5.v) Counterplans
-Delay CPs, PICs, and “The president should sign the bill with a blue pen instead of black pen” CPs are generally abusive but I will vote in the absence of aff theory.

(2.a.5.vi) Theory
-I tend to lean aff at more than 3 conditional worlds + squo (see my policy on judge kick in the technical disclaimer).
-Bidirectionality is usually bad because clash is usually good.
-I am probably more likely than most to vote on perf con or double turn arguments so long as they are impacted.

(2.a.5.vii) Evidence vs Arguments
-I believe that evidence exists for the purpose of making an argument. I skim the doc during speeches and rarely read evidence after the round. This is subject to the exceptions of if one or two pieces of ev. were flagged as important to the nexus question(s) of the debate or if I want to steal your cites.
-It logically proceeds that since I am leaning less on directly reading the ev. I am relying more on your characterization of it, so evidence comparison is still welcome and often influences close decisions at the LBL level.

(2.a.5.iv) Speaker Points
-"Well, okay. 15 is the minimum, okay? Now it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 30 points. And a terrific smile . . . Look: people can get clash anywhere, okay? They come to debate for the atmosphere and the attitude. That's what the speaker points are about. It's about fun . . . Look, we want you to express yourself, okay? If you think the bare minimum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, okay? You do want to express yourself, don't you?"

(2.b) Lincoln-Douglas

(2.b.1) How to win the round:

-Make arguments. At the most fundamental level, a reasonable argument is:
(i) a claim (a conclusory assertion),
(ii) a warrant (an interpretation of facts), and
(iii) evidence (data or mere facts).

-Clash with the opposing side. An unanswered reasonable argument is assumed true.

-Identify voting issues and collapse the debate down to those. Explain the purpose(s) of the round and why I should vote for a given argument over others. Value/criterion debates often feel like an exercise circulus in probando, so clash, reasons to prefer, and world comparisons are welcome.

(2.b.2) How to auto-lose the round:

-Wanton disrespect of persons. This includes racism, sexism, homophobia. In the interest of mercy, I have a fairly high threshold for reaching such determinations. Thus, this does not include actions such as misidentifying your opponents' gender or saying their arguments are dumb. I have never auto-dropped someone for these reasons and hopefully will never have to.

-With all this said, be comfortable and confident. I presume good faith and you have the benefit of the doubt. I hate intervening in rounds, so please don't make me :).

-As an alternative measure, I reserve the right to decimate your speaker points/give a no-point win, chastise you after the round, and/or inform your coaches or tournament staff of your behavior. I can count on one hand how many times I have done this, and I have judged many (read: hundreds of) rounds.

(2.b.3) Other relevant information:

-I'm fine with spreading, I did college policy debate for 4 years. However, LD is not CX. If objected to by the opposing team and it bars their comprehension, I will ask for no more than 200 WPM (quick conversational).

-Kritiks and Topicality: Kritiks of the resolution are fine. I am likely familiar with your lit base, but the burden is on you to explain it. However, in LD I am typically more sympathetic toward negative claims that Pro should be bound by the resolution.

(2.c) Public Forum

[UNDER CONSTRUCTION]

Personal Debate History- I am in my late years of collegiate debate i have spent a year at Liberty University debating, 2 years at GMU, and all 4 years of high school in debate. I have participated in speech events, LD, PF, Congress, and Policy. I am a kritikal debater normally going 1 off in my negative strategies in college. The literature areas i have experience in are capitalism, Neolib, Biopower, Securitization, semiotics, psychoanalysis, and others. I am a 2n.

Quick notes-

- You should assume that I am not up on the literature you have read. You should not expect me to know every acronym or all the latest developments in your DA scenario, nor should you assume that I understand all of the jargon in your K. Err on the side of ,at least, briefly explaining a concept before jumping into the intricacies of your argument.

- Defense can win debates and I have no problem pulling the trigger on presumption. I can be compelled that there is 0% risk of solvency to an affirmative case, or that there is no internal link within a DA. "There's a 1% chance that we're good for the world" is not a sufficient justification unless you provide a reason for why the opposing team's defensive argument is false or simply mitigates your claim (rather than taking it out terminally).

- I have a tendency to be somewhat expressive. If I find something stupid happening within a debate, I will likely face-palm, and/or shake my head; if I didn't understand you, I will give you a quizzical look. You should look up occasionally and take hints from the visual cues that I am sending. I won't make verbal interjections within a debate unless you're being unclear in which case i will say clear twice

- There is a fine line between being assertive and being rude. Don't cross it. If you don't know the difference, just watch for how I react

Some specific concerns:

Topicality-- I default to competing interpretations . To make these debates even close to enjoyable for me this requires an explicit list of what specific cases your interpretation permits and why this is beneficial for the activity. As for "Kritiks of T": I tend not to view these as RVIs, but instead as counter-standards that privilege an alternate debate curriculum that is more important than traditional conceptions. Negatives that plan on defending T against these criticisms should not only maintain that the 1AC does not meet what they view as fair and educational debate, but also need to go into a more specific discussion that impacts why their vision of a fair and educational debate is good and why the negative's alternate curriculum is worse in comparison.

Theory-- pretty similar to T debates but the one difference is that I will default to "reject the argument, not the team" unless given a reason otherwise. I have been known to go for cheapshots, but these require fulfilling a high standard of execution (a fully warranted and impacted explanation of your cheapshot, and closing the doors on any cross-applications the aff can make from other flows). Stylistically speaking, slowing down in these debates will help me put more ink on your side of the flow--otherwise I may miss a part of your argument that you find important. Additionally, a well-thought out interpretation and 3 warranted arguments regarding why a particular practice in debate is bad is significantly stronger than a blippy, generic re-hashing of a 10-point block.

Straight-up Strategies-- My favorite strategies often involve more than one or more of the following: a good t spec debate , topic specific DA(s), the one off strategy whether it be framework or the k, and a solid amount of time allocated to case turns/defense.

K and Performance Strategies-- I enjoy philosophy and have spent a significant chunk of my free time reading/understanding K and performance arguments. My familiarity with this style of debating makes it a double-edged sword. I will be very impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. On the other hand, if you fail to explain basic theoretical ideas within the scope of the K or fail to engage particular points of contention presented by the affirmative, I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Similarly, when opposing a K or performance, I am much more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that not only substantively engage the K but thoroughly defend why your theorization of politics and interaction with the social should be preferred, rather than a generic 50 point survey of claims that are made by positivist thinkers. This is not to say that generic "greatest hits" style arguments have no value, but they certainly need to be backed up with a defense of the conceptual framing of your 1AC (eg, if the negative wins that the kritik turns the case or a no v2l claim, I'm not sure what "predictions good" or "cede the political" does for the affirmative). In terms of a theory/framework debate, I am much less likely to be persuaded by generic "wrong forum" claims but will be more likely to be compelled by arguments pointing to abusive sections of the specific K that is being run (eg, the nature of the alt).

Other notes - please for gods sake slow down on your analytics on theory and t flows. The reason behind this is two fold.

1. I don't ever run these arguments so I'm not as likely to be able to fill in gaps if i miss something.

2. rushing through these issues makes it seem like this is a time trade off and not an investment to win, thus i will be thoroughly less persuaded by the arg and hold a much higher threshold if you do in fact get to go for it.

I WILL NOT VOTE ON REJECTIONS OF SCHOOLS OR SPECIFIC DEBATERS

the above does not mean i wont vote a team down for bad rhetoric, offensive acts or speech, or making the space physically unsafe. What this means is that this must become a problem in the round i am judging, must be made a disadvantage or reason to reject a team in that round, and be well impacted on why this is bad for the community as a whole to follow the precedent of the actions i would be rejecting. I will not and i repeat i will not just vote for args like Dan is bad for debate he does x y or z outside of round, or vote against Dan he goes to x school which is bad for debate.

Judges who i aspire to juddge like / places to look if im missing something - Rakeem Robinson, Lindsey Shook, Ben Hagwood, and Brad Boman

I do wish to be on all email chains - my email is lucasmiller74@gmail.com

speaker point scale

29-30 - Not college - your'e doing things at a collegiate level - collegiate level - youre teaching me about debate

28.5 - 29 you're above what i expected out of a round based on your peers at a given tournament

28-28.5 your'e performing on average as well as your peers at your tournament

27.5 - 28 - you've made a mistake which makes you seem like a weaker debater than where your skills are / you were rude and or disrespectful

27-27.5 - you need to improve your debate skills to be able to compete at your current division at this tournament

sub 27 - you were inappropriate

Welcome,

Background:

I find Debate to be a fun, interesting environment. In terms of Policy, to analyze and consider theoretical ways to improve the real world. Debate is ultimately, a game. Take the situation as seriously or not as seriously as you please. Just don't be disrespectful to your own, your opponents', and my time. The debate space is yours to mold- just make sure you intend to win.

Past:

1 year of policy debate at Oakton High School

1 year GMU Debate

Current:

Member of the GMU JV Debate Team 

Concerning Lincoln Douglas:

Make clear arguments, I will vote in favor of the most well explained, maintained, and arguably favorable (within the debate space) voice. Reading quickly is fine, but do not read at speeds relatively more suited for policy debate. Along with this, do not draw attention to the policy aspect of a debate, as that is not the purpose of this format- obviously.

Concerning Policy Debate:

Time:

I'm fine with assisting the debate round by keeping time on things such as Cross-X and prep time. Just make sure you keep the time for speeches going smoothly and do not steal prep time. 

Roadmap/Line-by-Line:

I find the organization of a debate extremely important, make sure you know the order of what's on the table so you don't mix things up and make analysis harder for me. Use signposts to make rapid fire switches between args more clear. Extend evidence restating the author, tagline, and args, that being said, I do find shadow-extension impressive. So if you can clearly refer to a card without explicitly naming every identifier of the evidence I'll consider it extended.

Common Knowledge:

I love when one uses common knowledge as evidence, but realize that it is essentially an analytic, not a warranted card of evidence. Also, please make it clear how a bit of info is common knowledge (such as it trending on social media or making headlines on the news).

Impact Calculus:

Make this clear, Magnitude, Timeframe, Certainty, all of it. Make it clear how I should weigh impacts.

Kritiks:

I find Kritiks very interesting (and exciting) despite being a policy-oriented debater. I can grasp what is being argued within a K, but it is important that you fully understand how your kritik works and explain it throuroughly. No one likes a sloppily done K.

Policy:

As a policy-oriented debater I find it absolutely crucial that you understand your own policies and can thouroughly explain them beyond the cards.

Topicality:

Feel free to go for T, I find it makes debates more interesting. Be reasonable with your definitions, absurdity does not get one far with T, though it is amusing. Ensure that you make it clear why the opposition is not topical, and make it clear how they could have been, but failed to do so, thus ruining the situation. If you're going up against it, make it clear why you are indeed topical, and the opposing definition is worse than yours. If you can't really prove that an Aff isn't Topical don't even try, it's abusive. Also, I get that you can run T as a time-suck, but I like seeing it kept afloat throughout debates.

Cross-Examination:

I absolutely love Cross-X and thoroughly enjoy when the fact that it is "binding" is used to one's advantage. Use Cross-X throughly not only to clarify on things, but to make yourself look good and the opposition not so much. Just make sure you let the opposition answer the questions asked- otherwise what's the point of asking? If you ask a question right before Cross-X ends it's your call if you want to use prep to continue it or leave it dangling in the air, both are risky as I see it but can have merit.

Counter Plan:

Net benefits are what make counter plans valuable, if you can't make it clear that yours has one and thus cannot be permutated, don't go for it.

Permutation:

Prove the perm completely absorbs all the benefits of the CP while having the net benefit of the original plan, otherwise it is pointless.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

Make it clear you know your own Ads/disads, if the opposition asks about them in Cross-X you should be able to clarify and back them up.

Uniqueness:

If the opposition gets you here you better be able to prove that this somehow does not affect your evidence's relevance (i.e. the evidence is predictive and thus accounts for the future as well as the past.) Otherwise this will not turn out in your favor.

Voting:

I'm pretty consequentialist with my voting, that being said, it is important that you make it clear how my voting should be framed. I'm pretty straightforward. 

Speaker Points:

Exude confidence (or at least a sense of control), be clear, and be audible, mantain eye contact with me during Cross-X and try to not have your face buried in your evidence as you speak in speeches. 

Notes:

Don't be offensive (i.e. ad hominem), and if you are being offensive, recognize it and apologize immediately or the round will not go well for you. Feel free to play music before the match. Do your best!

Rob Wimberly
Debated for 4 years at Dominion High School, 2 years at the University of Mary Washington, 2 years judging/coaching

I would like to be on the email chain. My email is robert.wimberly95@gmail.com. If I had to direct you to my paradigm to get my email and you're just now reading this, know that I'm disappointed that you didn't read my philosophy before the round.

Please label the subject of the email chain with both team names, the tournament, and the round

Big Stuff:

Debate is a communicative activity, and it's your job to make sure that I understand the arguments that you're making. I'm a pretty expressive judge, so if I'm not understanding your argument, I will probably give you a weird look. If clarity is a problem I won't yell clear, but my face will show it - it's your and your partners' job to make sure that you are communicating clearly. I don't like trying to put together poorly explained arguments at the end of the debate, and in the post-round I'm more than willing to tell you that I didn't understand your argument based on how it was presented in the round. 

Beyond building communication skills, I think debate's other big benefit is exposure to a wide variety of literature bases (international relations, critical theory, public policy, economics, etc.). I like it when teams are experts on the research they're presenting, and if I feel like I've learned something new, it will show in your points. 

Organization: Line by line matters. I'm happy when my flow is kept clean. I reward efforts to help me keep my flow clean with speaker points. Please name your flows in the 1NC. I'm not a huge fan of overviews. Debate like this and I'll reward you with points http://vimeo.com/5464508

Quals matter. I would prefer it if you read the qualifications to enter them into the debate before you argue that your author's qualifications are better than your opponent's. Remember that qualifications aren't necessarily based on education alone - relevance of experience to the substantive argument in question is also a factor.

Truth matters. "Alternative facts" are not facts. I reserve the right reject evidence that is blatantly out of context or arguments that are particularly morally repugnant (i.e. "racism good"). I will read the unhighlighted part of your evidence to assess "truth," but I do my best to separate that from how your argument was explained in the debate. Ev comparison is welcome.

Prep starts at the end of speech time and ends once the email is sent/the document is saved.

Specific Arguments

T - I'm not really sure where reasonability begins and ends, so I tend to favor competing interpretations. I think vagueness and specification arguments are important and worth evaluating, but this should begin in cross-ex

Advantage/Disadvantage debate - Impact comparison is important and necessary. I am frustrated by 

Uniqueness shapes the direction of the link. If you're hoping to go for link shapes uniqueness, refer me to parts of the uniqueness debate that you think proves that uniqueness is close.

Counterplans - 2nr should be explicit in weighing the risk of a solvency deficit against the risk of the net benefit. Affs should be specific when making permutations. Most counterplan theory is a reason to allow cheaty perms or reject a counterplan altogether rather than a reason to reject the team.

Conditionality - I'm OK with the community consensus of 1 CP 1 K, but that can be changed by good debating. Convince me that your interpretation is better for accomplishing the big picture issues I noted at the top, and you'll do well. Affs should capitalize on strategies that are abusive for a combination of reasons (floating piks with a conditional alternative for instance). 

Critiques (and critical affirmatives) - I'm open to them. I'm not super familiar with all but the most basic parts of the lit base. I tend to be much better at concrete (rather than abstract) thought, so use lots of examples. Long overviews should be discouraged (see above). Root cause arguments don't make a ton of sense to me logically - if a carbon tax solves global warming by making renewable energy comparatively more economical than fossil fuels, why does it matter that capitalism caused global warming? Likewise, "alt solves case" arguments tend to fall victim to timeframe problems. The best way to win in front of me is to go for scholarship related arguments - if you prove that the scholarship of the 1ac leads to faulty conclusions that implicate solvency/the 1ac scenarios. 

Case - Presumption is a thing. Most 2nrs should address the case

Feel free to email me with questions!