Update for LD (2017):

My background in primarily in Policy Debate, but competed in LD in the past. I enjoy faster debates that are well warranted and impacted. 

This resolution (Police Misconduct) seems to have a lot of good policy and philosophical ground and performance argumentation. I prefer that debaters do what they do best. Personal preferences are for well impacted argumentation and good theoretical debates. 

Background:

I debated in HS (three years) and at Clarion (2008-12) and qualified to the NDT once. I am currently a social worker.

Overview:

I view debate as a competitive educational activity. Preserving competitive equity is more important than education to me, but without either of these aspects debate would cease to be what it is.

I prefer specificity to generic argumentation in all things theory, affirmative case structure, DA/CPs/Ks.

I prefer a few good well warranted cards over a few short cards that lack warrants.

Be respectful of your opponents and teammates.

Remember this is simply a list of my predispositions.

Topicality:

Specificity is key. On both sides provide a clear interpretation of what cases and other arguments are allowed and not allowed and then impact why this is better for debate than the other team’s interpretation.

Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

Affirmative case structure:

I prefer well developed advantages to three card wonders.

Counterplans:

Conditionality is generally good. Some types of it are not such as Consultation. Multiple conditional advocacies can be problematic.  Specific solvency can help a lot to justify otherwise shady arguments. Object fiat is never legit.

Critiques:

I am well versed in some critical literature, but do not assume that I know your argument. I view myself as a policymaker unless explicitly asked to view myself in another role (informed citizen ect.). Framing is crucial when debating a team that engages in a different style of debate than you. I prefer to intervene the least amount possible in deciding rounds.

No Value to Life arguments will not get you anywhere, just not perquasive.

C-X:

I flow cross-examination and feel that it is the most underutilized portion of the debate. Good debaters use it to set up arguments.

Other:
If you are not clear, I will let you know.

My speaker points may be a bit lower than the exploding community norm.

30 – Blew my Mind.

29.5 – Amazing

29 – Top speaker award worthy

28.5 – Deep Elim round worthy

28 – Elim round worthy

27.5 – Might Break, might not

27 – Not Elim quality yet, but making progress

26.5 – Hard to understand / major technical issues

26 or lower – There are mistakes that we’ll talk about after the round.

Other speaker point notes –

Be respectful and friendly towards your opponents, I may have a lower tolerance for rudeness than other judges and will not hesitate to preserve the safe atmosphere of debate rounds. Swearing is unprofessional and will be reflected in speaker points.

Email- mmdoggett@gmail.com

Background:

My college career started back in the 90s when CEDA still had 2 resolutions a year. I have coached in CEDA, NFA, NPDA, IPDA, and a little public forum. I am now coaching mainly in NFA LD.

General:

First, you should not assume that I know anything. This includes your shorthand, theory, or K literature. If you do, given our age differences, you might be shocked at the conclusions I'm going to come to.

Second, if you don't offer an alternative framework I will be net benefits and prefer big impacts.

Third, I presume the aff is topical unless the negative proves otherwise. I don't necessarily need proven abuse either. What I need is a clean story from the final negative explaining why they win and why I'm voting there. T is a voter, and I'm not going to vote on a reverse voter (vote against a debater) unless it is dropped or the carded evidence is really good. I am more willing to ignore topicality and look elsewhere than I am to vote the negative down on it. In rare instances, a negative can win without going all in on it, but that is very, very unlikely.

Fourth, I tend to give the affirmative risk of solvency and the negative, a risk of their DA.

Fifth, I'm probably going to need some offense/risk of offense somewhere on the flow to vote for you.

Sixth, if your K links are non-unique (apply to the status quo as well), you are only going to win if you win your alternative.

Seventh, on conditionality (LD specific)- I will probably vote conditionality bad if you have more than one conditional position.

Eighth, I will vote on them, but I'm not a fan of tricks. Tricks are usually a good indication that you know that you have done something pretty shady but if the opponent let's you get away with it, I'll vote for it.

In closing, I think that pretty accurately describes who I am but just remember I try to vote on the flow, but I tend to only look at the parts of the flow the debaters tell me too. Good luck!

I have an IE and limited collegiate debate background (more NPDA and IPDA than LD), so I'm not illiterate, but I'm not a coach. Excessive speed is not a good idea.

I'll vote on procedurals if they're not inane. This early in the year, I'm tolerant of arguments on potential abuse and of good analytics. Outside that, I'll vote how you tell me to vote, so give me criteria fit to the round.

My name is Christopher Hachet, and I am an assistant debate coach and judge from Capital University in Columbus Ohio. I competed in debate during high school and was the novice state champion for Indiana in 1982. Then I judged high school debate when I was in college. Working part time with collegiate debate for about five years now and a bit of back story is in order.

I graduated from Taylor University with a bachelors degree in education in 1989 and decided that I did not want to teach. After a short career in commercial sales, I decided that my real passion was working with my hands and building things. Thus I became a master licensed journeyman electrician and refrigeration mechanic. This proved to be a fabulous career choice for me , and I moved up to become a foreman running all sorts of interesting projects from a neurosurgery clinic to a large middle school.

As the economy slowed and my later forties loomed large, I decided that I wanted a change of pace and took a job at Capital in the Facilities department. My father had worked in higher education for most of his adult life, and I felt a strong desire to give back to the field of higher education. Dr Koch was kind enough to also let me assist with the debate team, and I have had a blast driving all over the country with CEDA, IFA LD and NEDA debate as well as various speech events. Your fifties can really be the best decade of your life, and I still love debate 35 years after my last round of actual competition.

My judging philosophy can perhaps be best summed up by a very short analogy. Were you to be at my work bench struggling to make a strait cut in a piece of wood with a hand saw, I would look at the most simple and immediate items to help you be a better sawyer. Your posture, how you clamped the work piece to the bench, and how you held the saw would be much more important than an esoteric discussion about how to set rake and fleem while sharpening a hand saw. In a like manor, I look for debaters to focus on a strong basic ontological understanding of the concepts they are working with, careful argumentation and analysis, and keen cross examination skills.

Follow Ockham's Razor with Ockham's aftershave and we are all set!

In terms of what my actual voting criteria are, there are perhaps 5 different models of looking at a debate and I borrow from all five. They are;

The Stock issues Paradigm;

Topicality seems to be the defacto concern regarding stock issues. Will vote on topicality with a fairly high threshold because I believe in Affirmative presumption and the right of the aff to approach the topic in whichever route they find pertinent. If you are claiming abuse on the Neg side I will be much more sympathetic to your topicality claims if you attempt to clash with the Aff in good faith. Most topicality debates fall down on the neg side in my experience because of inadequate in round work on why I actually should prefer the neg interpretation. Multiple forms of T arguments in the same round are not abusive IMHO but I often find them counter productive.

The Policy making Paradigm;

This most closely resembles how the older hairy guy sitting in front of you as your judge is going to view the next rather intense hour or so of your life. My personal philosophical world view is based in existentialism and realism, and I tend to view the world and judge policy through that lens. Student analysis and reasoning is much more important to me than evidence. Convince me that you understand the policy issues at hand and have done some original critical thinking on the debate resolution. Debate is not a clash of evidence cards, it is a clash of ideas. Bring me yours. I just drove a few hundred miles to hear them.

The Hypothesis testing/Social science paradigm;

I do allow multiple negative positions to be run even if they are contradictory in order to test the resolution and the Aff's interpretation of the resolution. If I grant the Aff presumption in terms of interpretation I also have to grant the neg presumption on how they will answer the Aff. If you disagree with this, please see Tabla Rasa and Game Theory below.

Tabla Rasa;

The driven sands of the Sahara and the emptiness of a blizzard are my models of thought in terms of both link story for things like negative disadvantage claims and aff solvency claims. I am neither Greek nor Tabla Rasa but I think there is much to learn from both schools of thought. If in doubt, spell it out. It would be unethical for me as a judge to to sit in the back of the room and make assumptions about the actual impacts of implantation of Affirmative's policy proposal. Also unwilling to concede anything along the lines of giving agricultural subsides to Bolivian beet farmers causing nuclear winter and extinction without some sort of plausible explanation.

Your approach to how you wish to approach the round is completely up to you. I have no preferred style of presentation.

Game player theory of debate;

Keeping it fair regardless of school being represented or reputation of debater is a top priority for me as a judge. I have a bad habit of voting down good debaters when they get sloppy.

I expect you to be highly focused on the flow of the debate and make arguments that lead to a proper clash of ideas. Several previous debaters would describe me as shameless at dropping a team on a ballot if a key argument is dropped and the other side catches it. You probably don't want to be that person.

Final notes;

Speed is fine...I have only ever had to ask a debater once to slow down. If you are in round and your opponent is speaking too quickly please get my attention by saying "clear" loudly enough for me to hear. I will acknowledge your request and signal the other debater to slow down a bit. If it is obvious a debater is using speed in an abuse way I reserve the right to down vote this as a form of abuse.

I am open to different philosophical approaches in debate. Upvoting or down voting things like Kritiques based upon actual in round work and explanatory power of ideas presented keeps debaters working hard and tournaments interesting. Most of all I enjoy it when people think hard and challenge my own thinking. By no means am I Elijah sent from on high to be the prophet of debate.

"The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas." - Linus Pauling-I prefer that you pull as much forward into the final rebuttal as reasonably possible. If you are winning an argument and do not bring it forward as a voter clearly I will not upvote you on that idea.

Do not be afraid to disagree with me, and I also am open to any questions before or after the round.

Taylor Hahn

Clarion University of Pennsylvania

Judging Philosophy 2016-7

Years judging: 9

My interest in the debate community (and why you should care):

My academic interests include the norms and practices of collegiate policy debate. This means that I am interested in your arguments, but I also care deeply for how various styles of argumentation affect the activity and our collective capacity for social engagement. What does this mean? 1.) I like good theory debate. This also means that I probably hate bad theory debate more than most judges because I consider shallow discussion to be failed potential. 2.) Your debate (all debate) is a performance. Don’t be afraid to play with your role. You don’t have to step outside of our argumentative comfort zones to debate in front of me, but don’t be afraid to engage new styles. This message is for debaters that are usually policy-centric as much as it is for kritik or performance-centric debaters. 3.) Norms and practices in the community are established through our individual discourse. Don’t be afraid to defend good debate / attack bad debate if you believe it manifests in the round.

My default style of judging:

Unless told otherwise I will view the round as a policy maker. That being said, I am very much open to alternative modes of analysis. In the world of a policy maker, I will judge the round based on the question of whether or not the plan is better than the status quo or a competing policy option. Any level of speed is fine, but please be clear. An articulate semi-fast speaker is far better than a speed superstar that I can’t understand. CX is binding and I flow it when necessary. I rarely called for cards. If one team does a far better job articulating warrants, I do not find it acceptable to discover the warrants of the opposing team on their behalf.

Topicality/Theory:

Under the policy making framework, I will also consider topicality a prima facie voting issue. If I should be considering topicality, fairness, etc. as undesirable (or genocidal) you will need to spend a good amount of time explaining why. In regard to theory, in-round abuse is not necessary to win as long as the potential abuse is clearly explained. Theoretical arguments should be as specific as possible in regard to both the argument and its relation to the topic.

Counterplans:

I’m fine with international/alternate actor CPs, but I’m open to theoretical objections against either. Fiat abuse is entirely open to debate, but I do believe that fiat is necessary and reciprocal. I am open to conditional/dispo positions, but enjoy and can be persuaded by theory arguments against either. The acceptability of multiple conditional advocacies is always open to discussion.

Kritiks:

I enjoy well-constructed kritiks, but clear articulation of the core philosophy is essential. I was a policy debater and coach policy teams, so you will need to catch me up on your literature. Kritiks should clearly explain what they mean, how they apply specifically to the plan, and why I should vote for them. Alternatives should be clearly defined (this is where most kritiks fail). Role of the ballot arguments are fine, but I need to know how they relate to debate as an academic activity.

An important caveat - I realized recently that I have never voted on the argument that there is 'no value to life.' I doubt that I could ever find this argument persuasive.

Non-traditional debate/projects/performance:

What you’re doing, why you’re doing it, and what it means in context of the ballot is essential. If you are promoting a project and are arguing that the ballot is a mechanism for change, I will need to know why and how this change might operate. I am persuaded by teams that simultaneously defend their own framework while engaging in the other teams’. Engagement is the key word here.

DA/Case:

Most good debates have an intense discussion on the case advantages and solvency. Case debate has been heavily under-utilized in the past despite being one of the most persuasive avenues for the neg. DA flows are generally more persuasive when cards and warrants are extrapolated rather than giving me tagline extension or a card throw down. Storytelling will win or lose you the round here.

Speaker points:

Have fun and enjoy yourself. It will help all of us.

I have been involved in debate for about 15 years. I debated for 2 years and have been a coach/judge for about 13 years. When I judge a round, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I tend to view the round as a court, where I am an actual judge, and the affirmative and negative are presenting me with a case. It is my job to judge the evidence and arguments as they are presented in the round. I am to assume no outside opinions or evidence which is not presented in the round. Under this theory, any argument can win. I will listen to and vote for any argument in the round, provided that it is well-evidenced and argued. Also, I tend to be a very standard judge, your average judge will probably vote the same way I do. The only thing you need to win is good evidence and impact calculus.

I feel as though debate rules are more like guidelines than a list set in stone. Proper debaters should strive to meet the rules or guidelines in front of them. However, unless there is a clear argument in the debate that the other team is violating important rules, I will not vote a team down for it. I believe it is up to the debaters to point out those rules and explain their importance in the debate. I will vote on properly laid arguments for or against the rules based on how the debaters handle these issues.

I will vote for any argument that a debater places in the debate, if I’m given a good reason to do so. Also, although I do like Topicality, it is a harder argument to win. The negative must really go for it and prove their violations, standards, and the impact it has on the round. Also I don’t like it when someone makes a bunch of Topicality arguments and then drops them with no given reason. Try to use Topicality strategically, and if it needs dropped, explain why and what that means for the round.

In the rebuttals, I expect debaters to give me clear voters and tell me why I vote on these issues. When a person does not give me clear voters, it is up to me to interpret the round and I don’t like doing that. I prefer clear cut reasons to vote for each side. If one person has clear voters and the other does not; the person with the clear voters and impact stories will usually win.

Jim Lyle 
Director - Clarion University 

Constraints: UMW

Shirley 2013: I intend to follow the suggested speaker point guide posted by WFU as best I can. 

General Statement 

1. I see debate as first a competitive activity, and second as an educational activity. Allow me to clarify. I love the educational aspects of debate, but the thing I love the most is that we get to use education in the context of a game. I find myself most interested in the preservation of debate as a fair, competitive activity for both the affirmative and negative teams. If protecting the competitive dimension of the game isn’t our priority in considerations about how debate should operate, then we should all stay back at our respective schools on weekends and discuss these issues on Saturdays in college libraries with other interested people and save the expenses associated with traveling to debate tournaments. 
2. I also love that the game allows us to play with a lot of arguments that might remain out of reach of institutional policymakers. Debate is an activity that allows us to play with more controversial positions, and advocate ideas that can not be articulated elsewhere. This teaches people how to argue on a host of fronts, and develops/enhances critical thinking skills. 
3. I think I am in the same place as a number of judges regarding evidence quality. This is never an issue in the round and the consequence is that teams get away with a slew of claims being advanced by unqualified authors. Additionally, there are a number of instances where a smart argument can beat a card but teams don't bother. 

Topicality 
1. It’s a voting issue. 
2. The key to debating topicality for me is the ability of both teams to concretize their arguments with examples of affs/arguments that allowed and/or disallowed by a particular interpretation. The team that does a better job demonstrating the effect of an interpretation on the game generally probably is gonna win the argument. 
3. Competing Interpretations vs Reasonability. I’d guess I’d say I’m a fan of reasonability. I say that because I generally see all T debates as a question of what is the most reasonable interpretation, and between the aff and the neg we have two…which compete. “Do vs. justify” just doesn’t make much sense if both sides are willing to allow the specific aff in question to be topical. 

Theory/CPs 
1. Most of these debates tend to go for the team seeking to not lose on theory simply because the debates are too fast and too jargon-laden. 
2. The number of debates where fairness is the end-all-be-all on Theory Issue A and education is the end-all-be-all on B is bewildering. What may be worse is that this is never called out. 
3. I think affirmative teams are cowardly lions on theory. 
4. I think conditionality is good and presume the counterplan is conditional. Logic says stick with the status quo if both the cp and plan are bad ideas. Does this mean all conditionality is off the argument table? No. Multiple conditional advocacies may have issues. Certain types of counterplans run conditionally may be problematic (i.e., a conditional consultation counterplan)… Advocating the perm also seems logical. 
5. Think some PICs legitimate, some ask key questions about the desirability of the affirmative plan. Think agent CPs are legitimate, however, I think affirmatives tend to let the negative get away with a lot more in fiating things for counterplans. If we are gonna use fiat, it needs to be reciprocal and predictable/real world for both sides. For instance, if it can be proven that acting on “x” is out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, then perhaps the negative (or affirmative) doesn’t have right to that action (unless the opposition is given an equal use of fiat). Think we are asked to evaluate things from the perspective of the federal government. Not a fan of multiple-agent counterplans (i.e., CP has states and federal government act). Don’t like object fiat. Don’t care for international fiat. Specific solvency evidence does wonders in helping justify a particular counterplan, and if it’s from an affirmative solvency author then you get what you deserve. 
6. “This justifies severance perms”….then do it. Reciprocity is good. 

Cross-Examination 
1. Still flowing it. 
2. I “check-out” during the prep time and although I hear things, and may remember them, I will not go back and add to the “flow.” So, use CX strategically. 
3. I generally hate flowing the CX because debaters undervalue it. 

Critiques and so forth 
1. I view myself as a policymaker. I view the question for the debate to be whether or not the plan is a desirable policy option given the status quo and competitive alternatives. 
2. Does this mean I exclude the K? Maybe. Maybe not. I would argue that it doesn’t exclude the K, but rather shapes how I understand the K and how you need to frame the argument. 
3. You can argue that I shouldn’t evaluate as a policymaker, but I will evaluate the consequences of the non-policymaker mode versus the policymaker mode of evaluation. 
4. I “understand” the argument that the K is a “gateway argument” that has some if/then-thing going on when it is run with a bunch of DAs and CPs but am not sure why the AFF doesn’t get to access impact turns to the K when the K is kicked. I guess I am saying that I find it a bit confusing that the K operates somewhere in between DA world and CP world and that this creates potentially interesting, but generally unexplored, lines of argumentation. 
5. Performance. See above. Odds are that if you are a performer, I’m not the judge you want. 

Paperless 
1. I think prep time ends when the debater pulls the flash-drive out of the computer and says they are ready to jump it to the other team. I understand there are some tech issues to still be worked out but this is one issue that shouldn’t be a problem (especially since Whitman 3.0, I and I believe Synergy, have functions that allow for speeches to be saved automatically to the jump drive). 
2. I think paperless teams need to have a viewing computer available for the other team. I have no problem if the other team doesn’t wish to use the viewing computer but think it needs to be available. That said, I personally don’t get the “can we jump it on our own computer” phenomena. Why create a risk of being exposed to a virus? 
3. What if a paperless team reads additional cards in a speech that are not in the initial document? At the end of the speech, the paperless additions should be immediately jumped over. The paperless team should have to use prep for this. 
4. What if a paperless team jumps a file with 100 cards and basically forces the other team to find the evidence read? Not acceptable. 

Presumption 
I’m sure this is a little odd to see in here for most of you but I must admit that I am historically a bit of a neg hack and a large part of this is based on my willingness to vote on presumption. If there’s no clear advantage to doing the plan a tiny risk of a DA seems to be enough to say “don’t chance it.” I guess my point is that I prefer a well-developed advantage over 3 under-developed advantage. 

Delivery 
1. Be clear. 
2. I tend to let people know if they are being unclear, unless I can’t see your face. If you can’t look at me, I can’t let you know when you’ve lost me. 

Got questions? Ask. 

I'm autistic and strictly speaking have a lower audio processesing speed. This only ever really impacts me on theory arguments happening at speed and in especially background noise-ful online debates. Prioritize clarity please. Make it very clear where you're at and what you're doing. I've been doing just fine recently (I think I became accustomed to online debate) but it never hurts to disclose these sorts of things

An update on the above, I honestly have begun to beleive that the shift to speech docs has shifted students AWAY from emphasizing clarity.

I only vote on what I hear you say, not whats in the speech document. I also do not read cards for you unless there is debate on what a card says.

About Me and Debate: I have been doing competitive debate in some capacity since 2007. In terms of reading me: Generally if I look confused, I am. If I am holding my hands in the air and staring at you that means I think you're making a brand spanking new argument in the NR or 2AR that I have no idea what existing argument to put it on. So if that's happening, please make sure I understand why this isn't new (so why its an extension of an existing arg or in the NR's case a response to an Aff arg). Reading your judge is a good skill to have. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but I will be unhappy about it.

Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.

Speed: I am fine with speed, but (especially in this activity) clarity is KEY, if both your opponent and myself can understand then we're all good. I have judged too many rounds where debaters will try to go quickly not because they can do it clearly/efficiently, but because I'm fine with it so why not. That is a terrible reason to spread and I will dock speaks accordingly. Additionally please slow down on your theoretical positions, no one can write that fast. If I don't get all those sick T arguments you're making then my ballot will probably reflect it. Most important thing is everyone in the round understanding you, but don't be that person who says 'clear' just so slow someone down then go that speed yourself. No one should be winning rounds strictly because one person was much quicker than the other or because one debater can't understand the words another is saying.

I will say clear once, and that it all.

Ethos: For the most part, your ethos will only effect your speaker points and not whether or not you win the debate. Just because I think you're a jerk doesn't mean you're not a jerk who won. Though keep in mind that often the things that ruin your ethos ALSO lose you rounds (like assuming arguments are stupid and not explaining why or not finishing your argument because the implications are clear enough to you). I will usually let you know if you have done something that damaged your ethos.

There is another surefire way of damaging your speaks with me in the back of the room: I can get a bit angry when debaters I know are smart make stupid decisions.

General Theory: The voting issue "The NFA-LD rules say X" holds exactly no weight with me. I do not follow/enforce rules simply because they are rules. You should at least explain why that particular rule is good. In fact, if you wish for me to judge based on what the rules say, then I can. Please disregard the entirety of this paradigm, I am now a stock issues judge. If you want me to the follow the rules I will.

There are SO MANY other reasons T is an a priori issue and I never hear most of them.

Topicality: Topicality is my jam. It is quite possibly one of my favorite arguments in debate. I have fairly low threshold for voting on reasonability on marginally topical affs. I think debaters are the ones who set the realm of the topic. Tell me why your aff deserves to be topical. Tell me why your definition is the best one for this topic. Tell me about it. If your aff deserves to be considered topical, TELL ME WHY. For my negatives, remember to tell me why the Aff is taking the topic in the wrong direction. Make sure you think through your position and all of its implications. Make sure you tell me why this aff hurts you. Try to force them into showing their true colors. Run that DA you claim they will No Link out of, worst case is they don't make that argument but now you have a DA with a conceded link. My brain breaks when you refer to things as limits DAs or education DA. Say links.

Kritiks: The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. In fact, there is a good chance you will lose the debate if you just pull an NDT/CEDA K out of some backfile and read it. Keep your implications tied to policy action and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.View the K as if you are a lobbyist for X cause and you want to convince congress (me) to vote against a policy currently on the floor (the aff) due to a negative assumption that policy is making. Explain to me what happens when we keep making policies that make this bad assumption. Reject the Aff is a fine alt, just keep the above in mind. If you start reading a K and look at me and I look extremely annoyed, its probably because you aren't adapting to me. Not an auto loss, just a rough go. DO NOT RUN LINKS OF OMISSION. I am extremely partial to the 'we can't talk about all the things all of the time' argument.

To my K Affs: Kritikal affs are my favorite thing. I think they're a lot of fun and are super educational. If your K aff doesn't have a plan text that is relevent to the rez you will never get my ballot, preferably it should be fiated but I have softened on that issue. However, I do not listen to Topicality Bad. Consider my position on the K in the paragraph above this one. There are plenty of excellent examples of this. Once I read a position that changed the definition of torture to include mental anguish as a form of torture as a staunch rejection of Cartesian Dualism. This both helped the people we're doing terrible things to in Gitmo and other places, but also began the break down of dualistic rhetoric in the government (and yes, my card did say that. It was a sick card). What I'm trying to stress here is that we are a policy making role play activity. To defend a position you do not believe in is to become more educated on that position. Debates about the political are important and I think the way we do them is especially important.

Please note all of my personal views on competitive equity and having topical and preferably fiated affs can be ignored if your opponent should not even be at the tournament. See: Is a predator.

Roles of the Ballot: The role of the ballot functions as a round framing and a focus. If you think that a particular minority group is underrepresented within the topic and you'd like the debate to be solely about their betterment, make THAT the role of the ballot. Use it as offense on that generic nonsense test the neg didn't bother to make more specific to your position. We can have the debate on whether or not that framework is a productive one. Hell, the neg can agree that you're right about that minority group and tailor their position to operate within it. And isn't that what we should all want, assuming we truly care for said minority group and the role of the ballot is not simply to box the neg out of all of their ground?

Speaker Point Assignment: My speaker point assignment system is mostly gut based to be perfectly honest with you, but there are a couple tips and tricks I can provide to get your 30. Ultimately the assignment is a combination of debate style, organization, ethos, and clarity of speech. A perfectly clear speaker with poor organization won't get a 30, but neither will an unclear speaker with perfect organization. In terms of priority, I suppose, it goes Clarity, Ethos, Organization, Style.

My Flow and You: I would describe myself as a good flow. If you have any experience that statement should ring a few alarm bells and I get that. I have trouble getting cites at times, especially if you're of the 'full citation' mentality where the author and the date are 20 seconds apart. To be honest I prefer people actually extending their positions instead of "Cross apply XY in ## " and it definitely helps with my flowing. If you're flying through things like theory or don't clearly enunciate your tags I will miss things and you may lose because of it. You have been warned.

Things I think are dumb/Pet Peeves: Disease extinction impacts, "The rules say so", State links, Kritiks without impact D, "99% of species that ever existed are now extinct" logical fallacies, the rest of the logical fallacies, Putting the burden of proof on the negating position, blatantly asking your opponent how they'd respond to a potential argument you may make in your next speech (like come on, have some nuance), caring about white nationalists and their feelings. "Just read my evidence" in cross ex.

You'd have thought living through a global pandemic would have put the kabosh on disease extinction impacts. It has not. :(

Other Thoughts: Debate is my favorite thing and happy rounds full of debaters who also love debate is my other favorite thing. Remember, THIS IS A GAME. As the great Abe Lincoln once said in a fictional movie "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

History: This is my sixth year out from undergrad and my second year judging NFA-LD on the regular. 2 years of CEDA/NDT debating, 2 years of NFA-LD debating. High school; Congress and Mock Trial.

Dear Trans Debaters (and judges): Please feel free to approach me at any time over any medium for any reason. I am happy and honored to give any support you may need. Seriously, do not hesitate or think you are being a bother or a burden. You are important and deserve support.

NOW LETS TALK ABOUT DEBATE

New Thoughts: I feel in the last few years Ive gotten a better idea of where I lean on a few things.

In round: You should generally ignore faces I make, I make them a lot. The one thing you should not ignore is if I make a point to lean back in my chair, cross my arms, and frown at you. I am making it obvious that I am not flowing because you are either a)making a completely brand new argument when you shouldn't be b) repeating yourself or c)being offensive.

KRITIKS: Kritiks to me are about questioning and attacking the assumptions inherent in the 1AC and proving that those assumptions cause policy failure and/or significant harms. Note that this does not mean I think the K needs to solve for the case. In fact, most Kritiks that attempt to do so *usually* have terrible Alternatives. Your evidence probably turns case, takes out solvency, or outweighs on impact on its own. Your alternative should be well supported by your evidence. Reject Alts usually don't. I prefer Ks to be as focused on policy making as possible.I probably won't vote for Ks based on links of omission 99.99% of the time, they put an obscene burden on the aff.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are great for education and fairness in debate. Topical counterplans are BEST for these things. If you run a counterplan, you should probably go for it because they take a lot of time to just not go for in an LD structured round. That said, if you somehow have another viable position, you should be able to kick the counterplan as long as you don't use the affs own answers to it against them ? Thats abusive and the one thing I will vote you down for regardless of how poorly the aff explains the abuse.

THE AFFIRMATIVE: I love both traditional policy affs and kritikal affs. K Affs should keep my K section in mind as it applies to them. You should be topical and you MUST specify an actor within the resolution. Technically its not impossible to get me to vote for an untopical aff, but you should be relevant enough to be able to pretend you're topical, and defending yourself as such, or at least that the educational importance of your aff justifies the deviation from the topic. But it needs to at least incorporate some core aspect of the topic, like bare minimum. If you aren't relevant enough to do that, you shouldn't be running this. If you're not heavily involved in the topic, and/or you are refusing to use the USFG, you are blocking your opponent out of the round. Switch side debate is vital for fairness and education and rejecting the USFG cuz its evil is firmly neg ground. This is a game. Without fair rules it devolves into madness and national tournaments where Affs win 90% of their rounds (lookin at you CEDA (yeah that actually happened)). Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, there is always radical lit discussing these issues within the topic, and that radical lit does not preclude USFG usage/topicality as much as everyone thinks it does.

Ultimately running the same thing every round is only robbing yourself of the educational value of switch side debate and learning about the system we are stuck in right now (valuable knowledge for a radical as well). If your opponent does not want to go for the arguments Ive stated preference for here, or doesn't actually win that debate I will still vote for you. It is very easy though to get me to vote on switch side debate good, fairness k2 debate survival. The fairly low number of statism/reject usfg affs does not justify my intervention on this matter, but I will definitely re-evaluate that position if it starts to crowd out topical traditional affs.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT: Roles of the ballot can be used as a great way to open up debate about priorities and whats important. They can also be used to box the neg out of their fair share of ground. The neg should be able to critic it's productiveness and/or work within it. Forcing the neg to run a counterproposal probably means I hate your FW/Role of the Ballot

TOPICALITY: The best way to get my ballot on topicality is a really good brightline and a really good argument on the lost ground and why you should have it. You MUST talk about fairness and education and the topic as a whole. Refer back to General Theory below. If you are going to run it, you should probably mean it.

GENERAL THEORY/PROCEDURALS: In order to vote for a theory/procedural and treat it as a voter I need a clear description of what they did wrong, a brightline/what they should have done instead, and why it matters. It should detail exactly why it is abusive, and how it effects fair/equitable ground and education in this round and debate as a whole. I am not against voting on potential abuse and in fact, you should probably have some examples of it in your impacts. HOWEVER, it is more of an uphill battle.

If all you say is "its abusive and a voter" with no abuse story and no impact on debate as a whole I will not consider it a voter and you couldn't convince me to vote for it even if they drop it. If you can't make a full procedural for whatever reason, don't be afraid to use the word abusive though. It could still make me more likely to drop the arg if you do it right.

Don't rely on the Da Rules. It will eventually come back to haunt you because the rulebook does not distribute ground fairly and is outdated (#sorrynotsorry). Its also a lazy non argument that doesn't develop your critical thinking skills and will lose you speaks.

FLOWING: My flowing capability is decent. I will write everything you say down, and will *probably* put it in the place you want me to, but you should *definitely* be clear about where that is just to be sure. I do not always (or often) catch citations (ya'll mumble them...I did too tho) so you probably shouldn't use just the cite and assume I know exactly which card you are referring to. Tags/Parts of the argument are preferable.

SPEED: I will understand most of what you say no matter how fast you go, but don't push my mediocre flowing to the brink ESPECIALLY if I am flowing on paper. I can only type/write so fast. If I can not understand you its probably an issue of clarity not speed. If I say CLEAR you need to CLEAR. If that requires you to slow down so be it.
You have the right to ask your opponent to slow down, but do not abuse this. I expect you to be able to keep up with above average conversing speed at bare minimum. If you ask someone to slow down, do not dare go any faster than that.

SPEAKS: There is not a very consistent speaker points range in this community. I am probably a bit of a fairy in this regards. Good oration skills will get you higher speaks. Good clear fast talk will get you higher speaks. Making it easy to flow will get you VERY good speaks. Best way to get good speaks is debate well and show you read this paradigm (or at least skimmed it).

Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I coached policy debate for seven years, public forum for one year, and LD debate for five years.

Despite my policy background I am committed to the spirit of LD. This means that while you can speak quickly, you should be comprehensible and both debaters should be ok with going fast. I have seen too many debates where a varsity debater unnecessarily spreads out a novice debater.

Topicality is a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality even if it is dropped. Arguments about why topicality is problematic may be reasons to include your affirmative, but are rarely reasons for you to win the debate. It is probably best in front of me to frame these as expanding the interpretation of what the topic can be, rather than rejecting a topic all together.

The citation rules are so widely disregarded that I would feel uncomfortable enforcing them, especially if there is no conversation between the debaters about reading them prior to the first speech.

Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. This is not code for I do not vote on theory. I will vote on theory.

Negatives should narrow the debate in their second speech. Pick the arguments you are winning and go in-depth. I will give affirmative’s wide latitude in debate where the negative goes for everything in a messy way. Going for T and substance is usually a mistake, unless one or both are such a clear win that you have extra time (this happens rarely).

Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterplan presumption is up for debate). A negative can sometimes make a persuasive case that the affirmative has to prove solvency, which is a separate issue from presumption.

Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. I wish I saw more of these types of arguments.

I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.

I am increasingly willing to intervene in theory debates. Two speeches does not allow for proper theory development and gives both sides the ability to simply block out every speech. Counterplans like consultation and 50 state fiat require a very low threshold to defeat on theory. I am not a fan of conditional counterproposals in LD. Negative arguments like the affirmative doesn’t get permutations are generally nonstarters.

I will vote on kritiks but prefer them specific to the topic and with a hardy dose of explanation about why it relates to the specific claims of the 1AC. I am not a good judge for generic backfile checks with one card that is semi relevant to the topic area. Some additional clarification. Changes to how the round should be evaluated (moving from the question of the desirability of the policy) need to be made explicitly and early and should include substantive justification about why the change excludes or makes undesirable the aff.

Final speeches need to make choices and clearly identify their path to the ballot. One part of this is the order you present ideas in your speech.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make it hard for you to win.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer or be evasive when answering cross ex questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status of counter plans
4. Being unable or unwilling to explain your arguments in CX
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence.

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately, being nice to their opponents) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

I debated for four years at the University of Richmond using a variety of arguments.

My predispositions:

I weigh analytical argument - especially defensive analytical arguments - and evidence indicts higher than most.

I have no particular ideological ax to grind with any kind of argument, but in the past I have been a hard sell on affirmatives refusing to affirm the resolution in any way, but receptive to many different interpretations of the resolution and the topic.

On theoretical/framework arguments I am also hesitant to vote unless teams have been obviously and significantly disadvantaged.

I generally like intrinsicness permutations if they are adequately justified (e.g. do plan and ban the particle accelerator seemed to be to be quite real world and reasonable policy action). Generic arguments why they are bad that do not answer why the specific permutation should be allowed are given little weight.

Other stuff:

I am not an expert at flowing but try my very hardest, those who speak relatively slower and more clearly and are more likely to get their arguments down on my flow.

On speakerpoints I can be a little unpredictable and haven't judged in 3 years, so recent new standards and such and scales are a bit new to me. My aim is for my speakerpoints to not stand out in any way, but over the top rudeness will be punished. Trying to engage the other teams arguments in the most direct and/or clever way will be rewarded.

The California swing tournament is my first on the topic, so presume limited knowledge of the literature.

Have fun and be your best you!

2 Years Graduate Assistant @ Pitt.

2 Year Coaching MA @ Wake.

Debated Four Years at Clarion University.

Quick notes

1. Be nice to the people you debate, being rude to them during/after will cost you speaker points and I will judge you as a base creature

2. Love big debates with a bunch of arguments made (Warrants > Cards).

3. Author qualification matters.

4. Love specificity of argumentation and analysis. If deeply theoretical connect it to practice (in-round or normalized experience).

5. I think debaters relying on judges calling for evidence has gotten out of hand. A team will win a micro-argument if they explain the warrants of their evidence albeit they read less/worse evidence. If I call for cards it will be because the area of debate is undecidable based upon the analysis in the round.

6. I'm much more open to framework discussions for critical affirmatives then previously thought.

Rest of it.

Paperless Debate: I'm not really a stickler about prep time as long as people try to progress the debate to the best of their abilities. I understand that issues arrive because technology will be technology but I ask everyone in the room to be as ethical about not stealing prep as possible.

Framework: Without instruction, I will look at it from the view of an informed citizen trying to decipher whether or not the question of the resolution is met by the affirmative or not. If you want me to resolve the debate in another manner I need you to explicitly frame what voting aff/neg means and/or what the ballot represents and WHY that is important. Teams that want me to act more traditionally have the same presumption when telling me why I should actively execlude the performance of alterity.

Theory: I like interesting theoretical arguments; this is usually garnered by teams being specific when it comes to theory. Example, conditionality by itself seems good, multiple worlds without advocacy of a permutation while the status quo always being logical seems bad.

Biases I can think of:

-Multiple conditional Cp’s or alternatives are ok.

-Multiple conditional worlds - combination of Alt’s/Cp’s seems problematic.

-International Fiat – no opinion

-Agent Cp’s – No opinion

-Consult – Dirty/Cheating

-I find arguments for advocating a permutation to be persuasive.

-States Cp: No Opinion

Be topical. Reverse voters aren’t arguments. Substantial matters.

Critiques: Fine. The strength of the link qualifies how much weight I give to the impacts.

Speaker Points - It's all relative - Have fun - do what you love - be funny if you can - be true to yourself and the speaker points will follow.

Much Love,

Swan.