Woodward Academy

Emory

Email: mxabramson@gmail.com (yes I want to be on the chain). Feel free to email me with questions.

Top Level Stuff:

I will not hesitate to call you on card clipping/stealing prep. I don’t need the other team to call you out to vote you down on it. Clearly signpost. I’ll look at the doc if I’m totally lost, but if I have to read along to follow your speech, that’s a problem.

There is no reason not to send out docs or show highlighting of cards you are reading. If you do this you will get a 26.0 — no exceptions.

Tech over truth in general. That being said, my view on the truth of the situation will be a reason I find things more persuasive. If I know a bill has already passed, it doesn't take much to convince me in face of your evidence.

POST-JUDGING NOVICE EDIT: Yes I allow tag team, but don't be too reliant on your partner. Yes I want a roadmap, no you don't have to ask me if I want a roadmap. Please time yourself. No, you cannot start over after starting a speech.

Disclosure: Personally, I think you should post full-text of the 1AC, even if poetry. At a bare minimum, there must be a place where I can theoretically see the whole text. In the case of cites, that means I have the links to see the articles or places to access the cards beforehand. Poetry or narratives must be accessible in some way, either through online availability or being able to ask for the whole text through email. I won't do anything about it if the other team doesn't bring it up, but I am persuaded by disclosure theory.

I am not persuaded by "if you had any questions, you should've asked us," in the absence of them being able to see what they should have questions about.

I don't think new policy affs are a voting issue (because they revolve around the topic), but I think there is an argument for new non-topical affirmatives being a voting issue (because they could be about anything).

Preemption/Changing the Aff:

It's never bad. Not persuaded by links to this or PICs out of this.

Now onto the arguments —

T:

On T, I tend to vote for the vision of the topic that makes the most sense to me (which requires that the teams give me a clear picture of what the topic looks like under their interpretation). I like a good well thought out T debate, but you must have an abuse story that makes sense and doesn't rely on absurd examples. Ground, fairness, and education are all fine, but make it specific.

If this is a non-traditional debate, neg needs a TVA and a reason why their impacts outweigh or come first. Aff needs to do framing of their impact scenarios and why their vision of the topic doesn’t make it impossible to be negative.

Concessionary ground is a fine argument, and the aff needs to answer this beyond saying that they "could've read afro-pess and settlerism." That isn't responsive. The best aff response to this for me is that partial, rather than total, disagreement is best, and that total disagreement (such as DAs) are a negative form of debate (causes dogmatism, bad for education, etc.)

I don't like "fun" as an impact because I think that at best it's an internal link to other impacts and not a very persuasive one at that. I think that there are much better versions of this argument premised on the impact of having to research tons of K affs or bad clash.

EDIT: I have been voting on switch side debate a lot, mostly because people functionally drop it. I find this especially persuasive when your reason to vote aff is "we can spread our message/inject it into debate." If you can reasonably inject it on the neg, I am much more inclined to tell you to go do that. This complicates most aff offense, so I think it's imperative that you have an explicit response along the lines of a criticism of switch side debate (like Spanos or something) or a change in the way that reading it on the neg would complicate your message.

I don't like metaphors about T. I don't think that it is genocide or the settler state. Make arguments about why it is bad specifically that relies on actual implications of their arguments for what it would do to debate, not just what the USFG did previously in the context of your aff.

DAs:

I love a good status quo debate, however, think they frequently lack relative impact framing. I tend to vote for the teams that explain what they’re going to win and why that matters. Turns case is a bigger deal in debates than it often should be, but if it’s not answered it oftentimes determines my decision.

CPs (General):

I don’t judge kick by default, but I will if you make that argument. If both the aff and CP link to the DA sufficiently to trigger the net-benefit, I vote aff. I think of solvency as a sliding scale by default, you will have to prove to me why I shouldn't.

Sufficiency framing is my default until you tell me otherwise, but I'll be more generous about what counts as "sufficient" if you explain why it doesn't need to solve very much.

For specific thoughts, I'll separate these into categories:

States CPs:

Non-uniform is obviously fine, uniform is debatably fine, and multilevel (State and Fed simultaneously) is not fine. Adding on planks (other than the plan) such as funding or removal of balanced budget amendments makes me less inclined to vote that the CP is legitimate.

Advantage CPs:

They’re good. I like these a lot, but make sure you’re explaining why your specific mechanism solves (I think this is often lacking when the other team doesn’t make a lot of specific solvency deficits). Aff teams should make sure to push back against sufficiency framing.

QPQ and Unconditional CPs:

Probably fine, but that's debatable. The closer the solvency advocate is to describing the aff, the harder it is to go for theory. I tend to lean towards the aff on perm do the CP on the QPQ CP (less change), but neg on perm do the CP for the unconditional CP.

Process/Agent CPs:

Probably not fine, but I’ll hear both sides out. Make sure it’s not too contrived. The more “out there” and not related to the topic the mechanism is, the less likely I am to decide it’s legit.

International or Delay CPs:

Not a huge fan of international or delay CPs, but you can try to make your case. Debatability outweighs education as a general rule, but I’m not set in stone if one side is making better arguments.

Ks:

I'm fine with most critical literature, just be clear about what the link is to the affirmative. I'm likely to vote on the permutation if you don't explain beyond jargon. Perms are the argument I like the most, negs should make sure to explain why the perm is mutually exclusive (beyond just “it’s a method debate”). Don't try to go for it as a DA, it almost never gets my ballot.

I tend to lean towards that fiat is good even if not "real," but as with most things it's up for debate.

I dislike "gotcha!" tricks, but if explained well enough I can get on board (ie. say more than the words "serial policy failure").

I’ll also separate these into categories:

High Theory (Baudrillard, Nietzsche, etc.):

These are okay, but don’t get to jargon-y. Explain what happens post-aff if your explanatory theory of the world is true. It’s hard to win my ballot on just a case turn, so make sure you have an alt.

Identity (Wilderson, Settlerism, etc.):

This is a fine debate. Obviously, it comes down to a few critical issues related to ontology and explanatory theories of structures. I think the best versions of these debates acknowledge the extraneous examples and explain why their theory is still true. Perms are probably the hardest to win with this kind of K, so I would primarily focus elsewhere (go for that their ontology is wrong, which means the aff is a DA).

Policy-ish (Security/Neolib kinds of Ks):

Make sure you explain why it’s more productive to change structures in the way you describe before doing the aff. I find these Ks to be more persuasive when run more like impact turns (serial policy failure inev and aff bad, alt solves), rather than as high theory (at least v policy affs). Perm is a persuasive argument here, so make sure you’re playing defense to it.

Theory:

Condo is fine if 2 and under and never outweighs T. I won't vote on ASPEC (or any other spec arg). Vagueness is fine, but you have to prove abuse (I think it can be a good reason to reject perms though). Intrinsicness is almost never persuasive (use this as case defense instead).

Tldr; I'll vote on almost anything, but make it specific.

Non-Topical Affirmatives:

Args About Debate:

Spreading is good (although I am open to suggestions for making it more accessible). I leave proposed bargains (such as less speech time due to disability or other impairment) up to the debaters.

If you ask the other team to go slower and don't slow down yourself you will get very bad speaks (unless the other team agrees to this).

Debate is very good and I am very unpersuaded by arguments to the contrary (why are you here if this is true?).

If you want to speak in another language, that is fine, but make sure I know what you are trying to say (yes this has been an issue).

G-lang and other language Ks require a reason why the debate should be forfeited and could not have continued even with a sincere apology.

A Note I Never Thought I Would Have to Add:

I will not stand by while you do something that can hurt yourself in debate (including, but not limited to, setting things on fire and self-harm). You will lose the round and receive a 0 (yes this has happened).

Ways to Boost Your Speaker Points:

1. Tell jokes about Tripp Haskins, Jason Sigalos, or anyone currently on Emory or Woodward debate. However, PLEASE do not do this if you don't usually do comedy/don't know how to incorporate it into debate. If you tell a joke badly, it'll probably hurt you.

2. Be clear and concise, I prefer quality of arg over quantity. If you’re right on an argument, make sure that I know it rather than trying to marginally convince me of a lot of arguments.

3. Make sure language matches up both with your partner and the other team. It becomes very confusing very quickly if both sides have their own names for each argument (excluding flows).

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Paradigm.

Short-pre-round version: Former Director of Debate and Policy/CX debate coach at Calhoun High School (Georgia). Former NDT debater, college assistant coach. After my re-entry into the activity in 2002, I worked to learn the K, and my paradigm is still evolving. So far, I have been willing to listen to anything. I tend to reward debaters with clash and explanation, and teams that are clever and willing to take risks. I am taking another break from debate starting Fall 2019 and will not be as familiar with the topic or trendy arguments, so please slow down and explain.

Longer, working on prefs, version: Lived the debate life in high school (Southern California) and then college (Univ of Redlands). Started at the bottom but thanks to a great college coach (Southworth), some outstanding partners, and a supportive community, I had some success as a senior (won Kentucky RR, Wake, a few others, and a top 5 bid to NDT). Taught summers at Golden West, Wake, Georgetown, and Emory workshops. I researched for several debate handbooks (something we used to do), and assisted at high schools including Calhoun, Damien, GBN and Holt HS (Alabama). After leaving U of R in 1980, I assistant coached some outstanding high school teams, Samford University, and Calhoun. Co-authored the debate theory article with my friend Dr. Walter Ulrich, "Bad Theory as a Voting Issue" in 1982. Went to law school at Bama after that, and put debate away completely until my children were of age to start debating in Georgia's middle school league in 2002. That led to coaching the high school team, and since 2005 I have been the director of debate at Calhoun (small public school in rural Georgia with great debate and speech history - about an hour north of Atlanta). Was fortunate to bring in Ed Williams to head coach for a couple of years, and have also had some outstanding assistants (Jadon Marianetti, Jim Schultz, Kristen Lowe, Natalie Bennie, Judy Butler, and '16-17 Lenny Brahin, also sister Lynn [former NDT debater for Louisville, also now an attorney].)

Clarity: I may throw in the occasional warning of "clear" to debaters, but after two or three "clears", I will put down my pen and look annoyed until I can comprehend the argument. If you think from visual clues that I am not getting the argument, I probably am not.

I coached for many years on the national and regional (Georgia) circuit. I have a team of very dedicated and intense policy debaters. I have historically written a lot of our arguments, but the team and assistants are doing most all of that this year. Just point this out so you understand that just because my team runs an argument doesn't mean that I like it, or that I completely understand it. Coaching is a purely volunteer position, and my two part-time/full-time jobs are as the Judge of the Gordon County Juvenile (child abuse and neglect, deliquency cases) and as a private attorney representing plainitiffs in personal injury and victim's rights cases. I am usually accompanied at tournaments by my spouse, Carol, who is sort of team Mom, travel agent and organizer of all things.

Likes/dislikes: I judge debate because I love debate and the community and the education it provides. I try to be extremely objective, and believe I have the reputation of voting for teams because I think they won, never because of rep or outside (or inside the round) influences. In fact, I tend to react badly if I believe a team or coach is trying to exert undue influence. Post-round I will give my critique, and will answer respectful and honest questions from the debaters. I expect a team I drop (and their coaches) to be unhappy, but no matter what, please be nice to your opponents, your partner, your coaches, and your judge.

My email: Beardenlaw@aol.com.

natalielbennie@gmail.com--yes e-mail chain, but know I do not follow along with docs during the debate and do not tend to read a ton of evidence afterwards.

Debated at Samford University.

Currently coaching as a graduate student at Wake Forest.

Top level stuff:

• Do what you do best. Please do not try and change your debating to try and win my ballot-- chances are it won't help you out and you'll have less fun. I will listen to any argument and have experience running the gamut of them.
• My default position is as a policymaker and that debate is a game (a very challenging one, often with legitimate real-world applications, but a game nonetheless). That said--if you want me to evaluate the round in any other way, be clear about what my role as a judge is and present a justification for that interpretation, and I will be happy to do so

Specifics:

Framework:

• I am often very compelled by a topical version of the aff.
• Fairness is probably not an impact by itself, *update* but I find myself voting on it more often than I expect to.

Non-traditional affs:

• Go for it
• I don't think non-traditional aff necessarily need to be "topical," but I do think that the resolution ought to play a central role in your decision to run this affirmative.

Disad/Counterplans:

• Go for it
• Specificity is always preferable to generics and will probably be rewarded
• I am willing to no-link a disad
• I am often very compelled by a good overview that includes a thorough turns case analysis.
• Condo is fine and probably good. 3 CP's and a K are probably not. Cheater counterplans are probably cheating-- don't be afraid to take on this debate as the affirmative. I will vote on theory, but if there are other args you're winning, you should go for them instead.

Kritiks:

• Go for it
• Specificity is preferable to generics and will probably be rewarded
• While I may be familiar with your literature base, I will still hold you to a high threshold for explanation. I've seen a lot of k debates devolve into a battle of buzzwords with warranted analysis getting lost in the midst of it (to be fair, this is also true of a lot of policy debates). I will probably reward your ability to explain your own argument.

Tips for speaks:

• Time efficiency— Have the 1ac ready to send before the start time/the 1nc to send asap. Stands should be set up before the round. Inefficient rounds = lower speaks and less decision time, which may either help or hurt you (if that’s a gamble you’re interested in making).
• Assertiveness is not a license for disrespect or hostility.
• say smart things! Be nice!
• Make bold choices— trust your instincts.

Other stuff:

• Be kind. Be conscious of the person you're speaking to and how your tone/language choices/body language could be coming off.
• You are an intelligent and competent human being. Don't be afraid to use your brain and make some common-sense answers to arguments. I think a lot of what we say in debate is silly and could be taken down by a few good attacks, even without cards. Trust yourself to make smart arguments.
• Do not clip cards.
• Have fun! I love this activity and will put in as much effort judging your round as you did preparing for it.

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning


Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

Yes, go ahead and put me on the email chain: brooksniki9@gmail.com

A lil bit about me:

I was a policy debater at Alpharetta High School for 2 years. I currently am in my second year of Policy debate at Samford University.

General Overview:

I will vote on pretty much anything I am open to all types of arguments from afro-pess to the ptx DA. I don't like to do extra work for you, actually i won't do extra work, if you want it on the flow make sure I know that. I think minimal judge intervention is good. I love a strong crossesx, and a solid speaking style, it will deff have some influence your cred with me. I like to see the use of solid analytics applied and incorperated into the debate and ANALYSIS of the cards not just a tag line. Overviews, are fantastic,i don't want a novel... but by the rebuttals I want a lot of clash and impact comparisons so I can see your arg of how all of the arguments interact with each other. The more your off case interact with aff and the more comparison you do is what turns an aight debater into a bomb asfk debater.

Topicality-- love - If your expecting to win a round on T, your entire 2NR better be Topicality... debate is about making choices, and you should constantly be evaluating the round and deciding the args you can win the round with and args you can loose the round because of and make A CHOICE!!

Kritiks: love them. You need to really be explaining. I feel as though I am pretty well versed in various types of literature. But make sure you are explaining your specific K and contextualing it to your opponents args.

FW: not hella sympathetic to FW, but you know do what you gotta do homie. If you can, I would run your aff on the neg instead of FW.

Novice Notes: (TBH so many novices don't do this... dont be one of them)

- Extend your aff, if you don't come out of the round winning some part of your case your doing something wrong

- KNOW YOUR EV= better crossex and better round (boosts speaks)

-flow, it's important to get that skill down now

-CX is a speech, have a purpose

-clarity over speed PLS

- time your shit

Young Niki

Background: Debated mostly Policy Debate for 4 years at Marist School although I did a couple of PF tournaments here and there.

Email: bnq2658@gmail.com

Last Update 11/16/16

Policy Paradigm

Summary: I usually prefer DA Case CP debate but K's are fine if I can understand it. Really don't want to vote on theory though. 

General Things

• I don't take prep for flashing or emailing unless the tournament is running behind or tab is nagging me to get done faster
• Keep the debate calm and more relaxed
• I probably won't look at evidence unless it is specifically indicted or highlighted

China Topic

• I haven't had a lot of experience with this topic so please don't use too many abbreviations and acronyms
• I don't know much about China policy as of this year but I know a good amount of Japanese politics and policy if that helps you at all

Case

• Please don't read an econ impact in front of me if your internal links aren't amazing. I study economics and unless your internal link and solvency cards are by economists with a ton of numbers. I like warming impacts and sciencey impacts like nuclear fusion since they interest me and I would probably more likely to pay attention to them
• I'm getting tired of heavy impact debates and overviews. It seems like most of the time the debate boils down to nothing
• Solvency debates and debates about the actual aff are the most enjoyable for me since they make the debate less generic. They also have to be explained a lot more in detail since I probably won't know it

DA

• I really like DA debates
• The DA debate is probably going to be won or lost at the link level so I would probably focus on that 

Counterplans

• I like CP's but I'm sometimes easily confused about what they do so you have to make it clear in CX or the 2NC as to what it does
• I'm fine with judge kicking the CP even if you don't say it, given you extend case

K's

• I'm very hit or miss when it comes to K's. Often I get very confused by the barrage of information 2N's introduce in the block. Here's my advice if you decide to go for a K in front of me, slow down when you get to the K flow and explain everything as if I've never debated before
• K debates are way too technical and I hate that. Debate the K like how your authors would, slowly and philosophically 
• The link debate is honestly the only important thing about the K debate. If you run a K, I'm pretty much going to agree that you that you will outweigh the aff. I will, however, give you a much higher threshold to meet for the link so you need to spend about 75% of your time on the link debate
• K tricks are stupid and cheap ways to win rounds so I'm probably not voting for them 
• On the aff the first thing you should do is just hammer that 1NC link evidence. It's usually super generic 

T

• I probably won't for T unless it is pretty much obvious that the aff is untopical. I'm probably going to default to reasonability
• If it is a questionable aff, then please make the impacts clear and go slow. 
• If you prove that the aff is untopical but still lose the impact debate then I'll probably still just vote for you

Non-Traditional Arguments

• I honestly don't know how I feel about these since I've only encountered a single unorthodox debate. I would prefer it if your argument is topical
• If you do something really weird I'm probably going to have this confused look on my face and default to the more orthodox team

Theory

I hate voting on theory. Please don't make it a theory debate and if you do slow down. Theory about one specific argument is a reason to reject the argument.

• Word PICs: have to be extremely justifiable
• 50 State Fiat: stupid but not an immediate reason to reject
• International Fiat: good
• Consult and Conditions CP's: depends on the solvency advocate
• Condo: probably won't vote on unless dropped or perfcon
• Multiplank CP's: fine if you have a solvency advocate for each plank
• CP Perms: can make the CP go away, not sure about it as an advocacy
• K Perms: kind of dumb. Just go for the no link

Judy Butler: Hired Gun

Affiliations: Too numerous to list

Experience: High School: 29 years; College: 27 years

I will not attempt to characterize what the purpose or value of debate is in this missive; merely how I tend to evaluate the debates I get to judge. I think of myself as a teacher and the debaters as students and strive to treat them with the respect that relationship deserves. I thoroughly enjoy judging debates from almost any theoretical perspective. I also strive to support new ideas, sources of evidence, academic fields and literature entering debate that have traditionally been undervalued.

I like judging debates where the debaters directly address each other's arguments from the jump as opposed to waiting until rebuttals to compare arguments.

I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve in relation to one another as opposed to simply in vacuums - I will totally listen to debates about conditionality and don't have attitude about multiple advocacies.

I like judging debates when the debaters show respect for each other, including their partners - contempt for an argument or position is different than contempt for a person.

I like judging theory debates that have depth as opposed to breadth - five or seven words are really not arguments, nor are they flowable. I ten to shy away from voting on theory arguments that require that I "punish" debaters. I prefer theory arguments that are grounded in the effect on the debate process and the value of including or excluding certain argumentative perspectives and practices.

I like judging debaters that focus on comparison and argument evolution rather than repetition and tend to reward both content and style when apportioning speaker points. Specifically, winning your argument is different than answering theirs: saying why you are right AND why they are wrong is the minimum necessary to answer/extend an argument and put yourself in a position to win that argument in the last rebuttals. Ideally, this level of extension could begin in the 1NC and could continue throughout the debate by all the following speeches.

I promise to be riveted to your speeches, your cross-exes, and my flow. I flow what the evidence says, not just your label. I hope that softens the blow when I say that I don't want to be on the email chain - the debate I'm judging is the one I heard and flowed, not the one I read. If I need/want to see something I will ask - but I need you to be clear in the first place. If you want to understand and comprehend the quality extensions I am asking for in real time, clarity when you originally read your evidence is critical.

PS: Your prep time stops running when you have sent the speech - not before

Happy Debating!

I am no debate expert. At this point, debate enthusiast is probably a more fitting description of what I am. All that to say, hear me out and pref me accordingly. I was a policy debater for 4 years in the Chicago Debate League & I competed for 4 years on both the JV circuit and Varsity circuit for Samford University. It took me two years to learn that my talent and gift lie more with teaching debate and judging more so than my actual desire to debate. Had I applied myself a little more, I probably could have been a more competitive debater but meh- allegedly I'm an adult now and that's the past. Pay attention because this provides context for my actual paradigm; see below.

Debate is a game. Debate is a simulation. Debate is real life. Debate is an opportunity to model real life policy making. All of these things are true, and all of these things have a place in debate and deserve to be truth tested within the confines of the rules that exist unless you can articulate a reasonable argument that it is not. I will not tell you what arguments you can and cannot run. I think teams deserve the right to run the arguments that make sense to them, they are comfortable defending, and are prepared to argue. The real question is whether or not you are willing to do the work to earn my ballot.

I am a lazy judge. I will listen to you, and I will flow. I will vote on the arguments that make sense to me based on the work you do in the round. I will not go out of my way to prove I am competent by explaining high level theory knowing you will probably only retain 3 percent of what I say post round. While I will talk about the arguments, I will mostly provide feedback related to the procedural element of debate. If you see me in the back of the room, it is mostly as a favor to an old debate bud, which means that I am probably vaguely familiar with the topic, if at all, and have zero desire to spend time explaining how things came to be within the topic. If you have specific questions about the topic we can talk about it however, my goal is to ensure you receive the feedback you need to be a better debater- the topics change, the skills to actually be a good, competitive debater will not. After we have addressed the most important skills, I will talk about the actual round.

Arguments:

Again- Run the arguments you are comfortable with. If you can explain it and defend it, I will vote on it. Being a policy debater, from a very policy-oriented team, my typical wheelhouse of argumentation involved strong case arguments, disadvantages, T, and Counterplans with the occasional Neolib or Cap K. That's not to say I won't vote on anything else or refuse to commit to learning anything new- If you are going to run more high theory arguments, understand you will have to spend more time explaining the warrants in the cards and how it relates to the round. If you cannot do that, do what you do but good luck. You leave a lot of responsibility on me to figure it out and you may or may not like how I apply it to the round. I only draw the line with arguments that are discriminatory, hateful, and/or harmful. If it is from a place of ignorance, I will spend time to address it and enlighten you on why the arguments have no place in debate. If I feel it is done purposely to demean or hurt your opponent, I am prepared to end the round with a ballot in favor of the opponent enduring the abuse, severely dock speaker points of the perpetrators and I will address it with you and the coaches of both teams. I won't mince words. Consider yourself warned.

T and Procedural theory arguments are very valid debate strategies, however, be prepared to really spend time on it if you want me to vote on it. My threshold for these arguments is incredibly high given that a lot of teams aren't very good at articulating anything other than "our opponents dropped it." I need to know why the standards are important, I need to know what ground is lost, I need to know how this round sets the precedent for the remainder of the academic year on the topic. If you're going to commit to these kinds of arguments, commit.

Disads: Please make sure your warrants in the cards match the tags. I read cards. If it doesn't make sense, I am going to make fun of them. Tag your cards accordingly. Sincerely, Every Judge Ever.

Counterplans: You have the burden of proving you provide the better Alternative that is 1percent better than the plan. It is not enough that you provide an alternative. Do the work.

Kritiks: Not my favorite arguments in debate but again if that's your thing, have at it. You have the burden of proving why they are the starting point before we can even begin to acknowledge the aff plan.

I will not argue about my decision with you or your coaches. I said what I said.

More than anything, as a judge, my primary responsibility to facilitate a safe space for young people to have fun while discussing very important topics that shape the world around them. This is an extra-curricular activity and not anything that warrants stress and despair. While we are here, we are going to respect each other, learn together, and grow our skills. I will not tolerate any language or posturing that indicates otherwise.

All of these seem intuitive I think but alas... the opposite has happened enough to where for a while I entertained the idea that the quality of debate was rapidly diminishing. Jury's still out.

If you have any specific questions that I didn't cover here, please feel free to ask prior to start of the round.

FYI: My face tends to say everything my mouth won't. I have gotten pretty good at filtering what I say however, I am not responsible for what my face does when people start talking. Do with that what you will.

Background:

• I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
• BA in Philosophy.
• Currently coaching at Niles West.

Email:

• gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
• Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
• Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.

Pet peeves:

• Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
• Email-sending related failures.
• Dead time.
• Stealing prep.
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
• Marking almost every card in the doc.
• Disappearing after the round.
• Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
• Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.

Ethics:

• If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
• If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

Cross-x:

• Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
• Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
• If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
• If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

• I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.

Affirmatives:

• I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.

Topicality:

• I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
• The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
• 5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans:

• For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Disads:

• If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.

Kritiks:

• The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
• ‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
• I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.

Theory:

• Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
• Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
• Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Framework/T-USfg:

• I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
• I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
• I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
• I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
• I don't think debate is role-playing.

• If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.

Joshua Clark

Montgomery Bell Academy

University of Michigan - Institute Instructor
Email: jreubenclark10@gmail.com

Past Schools:
Juan Diego Catholic
Notre Dame in Sherman Oaks
Damien

Debating:
Jordan (UT) 96-98
College of Eastern Utah 99
Cal St Fullerton 01-04

Website:
HSImpact.com

Speaker Points
Points will generally stay between 27.5 and 29.9. It generally takes a 28.8 average to clear. I assign points with that in mind. Teams that average 28.8 or higher in a debate mean I thought your points were elimination round-level debates. While it's not an exact science, 29-29.1 means you had a good chance of advancing in elimination rounds, and 29.2+ indicates excellence reserved for quarters+. I'm not stingy with these kinds of points; they have nothing to do with past successes. It has everything to do with your performance in THIS debate.


Etiquette
1. Try to treat each other with mutual respect.

2. Cards and tags should have the same clarity
3. Cards MUST be marked during the speech. Please say, "Mark the card," and please have you OR your partner physically mark the cards in the speech. It is not possible to remember where you've marked your cards after the speech. Saying "mark the card" is the only way to let your judge and competitors know that you do not intend to represent that you've read the entirety of the card. Physically marking the card in the speech is necessary to maintain an accurate account of what you did or didn't read.

Overview
My 25 years in the community have led me to formulate opinions about how the activity should be run. I'm not sharing these with you because I think this is the way you have to debate but because you may get some insight about how to win and earn better speaker points in front of me.

1) Conceded claims without warrants - These aren't complete arguments. A 10-second dropped ASPEC is very unlikely to decide a debate for me. Perm, do the CP without a theoretical justification; it also makes zero sense. Perm - do both needs to be followed by an explanation for how it resolves the link to the net benefit, or it is not an argument.

2) Voting issues are reasons to reject the argument. (Other than conditionality)

3) Debate stays in the round -- Debate is a game of testing ideas and their counterparts. Those ideas presented in the debate will be the sole factor used in determining the winning team. Things said or done outside of this debate round will not be considered when determining a winning team.

4) Your argument doesn't improve by calling it a "DA" -- I'm sure your analytical standard to your framework argument on the K is great, but overstating its importance by labeling it a "DA" isn't accurate. It's a reason to prefer your interpretation.

Topicality vs Conventional Affs: I default to competing interpretations on topicality but can be persuaded by reasonability. Topicality is a voting issue.

Topicality vs Critical Affs: I generally think that policy debate is a good thing and that a team should both have a plan and defend it. Given that, I have no problem voting for "no plan" advocacies or "fiat-less" plans. I will be looking for you to win that your impact turns to topicality/framework outweighs the loss of education/fairness that would be given in a "fiated" plan debate. Affirmative teams struggle with answering the argument that they could advocate most of their aff while defending a topical plan. I also think that teams who stress they are a pre-requisite to topical action have a more difficult time with topical version-type arguments than teams who impact turn standards. If you win that the state is irredeemable at every level, you are much more likely to get me to vote against FW. The K aff teams who have had success in front of me have been very good at generating a good list of arguments that opposing teams could run against them to mitigate the fairness impact of the T/FW argument. This makes the impact turns of a stricter limit much more persuasive to me.

I'm also in the fairness camp as a terminal impact, as opposed to an emphasis on portable skills. I think you can win that T comes before substantive issues.

One note to teams that are neg against an aff that lacks stable advocacy: Make sure you adapt your framework arguments to fit the aff. Don't read..." you must have a plan" if they have a plan. If a team has a plan but doesn't defend fiat, base your ground arguments on that violation.


Counterplans and Disads: The more specific to the aff, the better. There are few things better than a well-researched PIC that just blind sites a team. Objectively, I think counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy are not legitimate. However, I still coach teams to run these arguments, and I can still evaluate a theory debate about these different counterplans as objectively as possible. Again, the more specific the evidence is to the aff, the more legitimate it will appear.


The K: I was a k debater and a philosophy major in college. I prefer criticisms that are specific to the resolution. If your K links don't discuss poverty and redistribution strategies this year, then it's unlikely to be very persuasive to me.

Impact comparisons usually become the most important part of a kritik, and the excessive link list becomes the least of a team’s problems heading into the 2nr. It would be best if you won that either a) you turn the case and have an external impact or b) you solve the case and have an external impact. Root cause arguments are sound but rarely address the timeframe issue of case impacts. If you are going to win your magnitude comparisons, then you better do a lot to mitigate the case impacts. I also find most framework arguments associated with a K nearly pointless. Most of them are impacted by the K proper and depend on you winning the K to win the framework argument. Before devoting any more time to the framework beyond getting your K evaluated, you should ask yourself and clearly state to me what happens if you win your theory argument. You should craft your "role of the ballot" argument based on the answer to that question. I am willing to listen to sequencing arguments that EXPLAIN why discourse, epistemology, ontology, etc., come first.


Conclusion: I love debate...good luck if I'm judging you, and please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

To promote disclosure at the high school level, any team that practices near-universal "open source" will be awarded .2 extra per debater if you bring that to my attention before the RFD.

I HAVE NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

2A for 4 years at Alpharetta High School

Current student at UGA

put me on the email chain: shlokadanave@gmail.com

tl;dr

We are all here to have fun so make sure to be respectful and enjoy yourself. Death is bad. Racism is bad. Sexism is bad. Anything that seems slightly unethical is Bad. Tech over Truth

Long Version

Case - I love a good case debate. Aff make sure to explain your impacts and if it's a complicated screwed up internal link chain, you are going to have to spend a lot of time on that for me to vote on that. Make sure to have good impact comparison. Neg please don't undercover case just so that you can read like 8 off instead of 6, I end up leaning aff in these types of debates because they have to take the burden to explain their aff and answer all of your off case when you don't even take the time to address their internal links

DA - I have no issues with these. Again make sure to impact things out, i notice that a lot of novices don't do this and it's really important for you to win the link level and the impact level of the debate. This topic doesn't have a lot of good DA's but aff specific Disads are cool. Aff, straight turn it that's fun.

T - I love t debates. Treat this like a DA ans don't just ramble on with a bunch of t buzzwords, make sure to actually explain your impacts. Make sure to be specific on the limits question of the debate because a lot of teams don't end up explaining that well. I default aff on reasonability if not answered.

CP - Aff when they read cheating CP's go for theory, if you do it right I'll vote on it, I really hate voting for cheaty cp's. On another note, treat a CP like they would treat your aff. read DA's read impact turns and extend solvency. conditionally is usually bad but i can be convinced otherwise. Neg, you need to make sure you do comparison on the sufficiency level and also properly answer solvency deficits and DO NOT GROUP PERMS. Do some actual explanation on your answers to each perm and make sure to differentiate them. You can't group PDB with an intrinsic perm.

K - I am not well versed in K literature. I will not vote on anything I don't understand so make sure you explain well. Links need to be contextualized to the aff and not just to their impacts. I'm fine with generics like Cap, Security, and Fem, everything else will need more explanation. I won't vote on anything unethical.

Impact Turns - I actually love impact turns I have no issues with these but no unethical impact turns and make sure you do this right. A lot of novices have confusion on this type of argument but make sure you have learned how to read impact turns before you do it.

Overall - just be nice and make sure you are respectful to everyone, including me and everything will go smoothly.

Put me in email chains or feel free to email me questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com

I probably need to do an overhaul of my paradigm; it will likely not happen until I'm out of grad school. Seriously just AMA if it will help you going into the round.

Experience:

MPA-MSES @ IU Dec ’23, hoo hoo hoo Hoosiers. GA since '21. Please note this is an environmental science degree. I have a very low tolerance for climate denial or global warming good and would recommend not going for those args.

BA: IR, Fr, Arabic @ Samford, May ’20, ruff ‘em, CX and novice coaching

HS: LD in GA, ‘16

Misc

A note: I won't read cards unless instructed or seeking clarity (and if this is the case, I will be grumpy). All comments will be typed in the ballot and am open to questions immediately following the round and via email afterward. I do my best not to intervene or let personal biases cloud my judgment. I do have a deep appreciation for friendly competition and will generally be happier while giving out speaks or making decisions if I think the people in the round embodied that spirit. Conversely, am not afraid to have a come-to-Jesus meeting for unnecessary antagonism.

For eTournaments: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust. I'll default to having my camera on.

Zoom debate: PLEASE double-check your mic settings so that background noise suppression is not on. Zoom decides that spreading is background noise and it messes with the audio.

Overall:

Do what you want. I'm pretty go-with-the-flow and will try to adapt to what the round is versus making you adapt to me. The main thing to consider with me is my personal debate experience and potential knowledge gaps because of it. I'm not a great judge for high theory because I simply don't get it and it takes more explaining for me to understand and take it seriously (@ Baudrillard, semio-cap, etc.). There's some k lit that I'm not fully versed in but I try to keep current on major issues. Otherwise go nuts but make good choices.

2AR/NR: I more and more find myself telling debaters to tell me a story so I think I should put it in here. Whether you're going for a K, FW, DAs, extinction - whatever - start the speech telling me what your scenario is and why it's preferable to the other team. This is especially true if going for a perm or in a KvK debate, having a nuanced explanation clearly at the top of the speech frames the rest of the lbl and interactions you go for.

This was formerly organized by each event that I judge but that was getting unmanageable and ugly. If you have specific questions about anything event-specific or otherwise, just email or ask before the round starts.

Theory

Topicality/FW - I'll default that fairness is k2 education – if you want a different standard to be my primary metric, just tell me to do the thing. Might need more explanation of how I can apply the standard but that’s mostly for the atypical ones. Err on the side of over-explaining everything. Please please please explain your (counter)interp and what standards I should apply to favor yours - if there are a bunch of standards, which one do I evaluate first? Why? To reiterate: err on the side of over-explaining everything.

Fiat - I'll imagine it's real for policy v policy debates but more than willing to be sus of it, just tell me why.

Condo – dispo is an archaic interp and I think you can get better offense from other brightlines (2, what they did minus 1, etc.). I’ll vote on dispo but it’ll take more for you to win it than you need to do. Generally, think condo gets to its extremes when in the 3-4+ area, but new affs could change that yadda yadda, do what you want.

Other theory – whatever, just make the interp/counter-interp clear and tell me what to do with it.

RVI’s – please strike me or pref me real real low if this is your thing. I just don’t like it. This is one of if not the only hard-line I draw on content. They’re a time suck to play weird chess instead of engaging in the substance of the debate. Also, the majority of the time, horribly explained/extended.

Content

No huge preferences here

Cross-ex - I don’t flow cx unless something spicy grabs my attention and it’s usually obvious when that happens based on my reaction. Bring it up in a speech to remind me. Open cross, flex prep, is fine – I for real check out for flex prep.

Card clipping – you’ll lose. Might report it to tab/your coach if I’m feeling zesty that day.

Silliness

Love a good joke, wordplay, or reference. I currently am trying to incorporate “slay”, “yeehaw”, “gaslight gatekeep girlboss” and more into my regular debate vernacular. Feel free to also use these and I’ll at least laugh, maybe boost speaks, who knows – depends on how much of a silly goofy mood I’m in.

About me:

I debated LD for one year in high school, and Policy for a year with the Samford Debate Team.

I prefer policy over kritiks, but I'll listen to anything if you present it well and explain your argument. It is super important to me that you explain how arguments interact with each other, and not just extend them.

Topicality- if you're going for T your entire 2NR should be T

Kritiks- I will listen to them, but I need you to explain to me the literature, don't just assume that I know it.

Framework is fine as long as its not offensive

Disads- Overviews are good, put them on top and let me know that they're coming.

For the Novices- time your speeches, make sure you're flowing, Cross X is a speech so make sure you're flowing that as well. Clarity over speed please. Please extend your Aff.

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

Debated 4 years at Milton High School (2A/1N)

Debated 3 years at Georgia State University (2N/1A)

Add me to the email chain: my email is t.oliver.flint@gmail.com

For pre-round reading: Do what you want - it's your debate, and I'm here to listen to you. I have not judged policy debate since 2019. 

The rest of this paradigm is a collection of my pre-existing beliefs/thoughts about specific issues circa 2019. I kept it in with minimal edits because I still agree with it, but I (try to) evaluate each debate based on how the debaters frame/explain arguments, so everything below is debateable. 

Basic Summary: 

1. Debate is a game. Consequently, I tend to think that fairness is more important than education etc. However, in order to really weigh the importance of fairness, you have to prove the value of the game, so it's useful to think of fairness as more of an internal link than an impact.

2. I believe that I should evaluate logical opportunity costs to the aff. This means that I'm more likely to be persuaded that neg advocacies that don't use the topic actor don't necessarily disprove the aff (see the section on Agent CPs).

3. I don't like offense/defense. I would much rather vote for a 2AR that clearly explains why a contrived DA doesn't make sense than a 2AR that goes for an equally contrived link/impact turn. I am willing to vote on 0% risk of the case or a DA, but it will require work on your part to explain it to me.

Specific Arguments:

Disads

I like DA/case debates, especially when the neg is investing time and analysis on specific case defense arguments. I read politics throughout high school, so I'll be familiar with it, but I think that it's probably not the best option in most cases. I would rather hear a more case-specific DA that clashes more with the aff.

Counterplans

I generally really like counterplans, but my opinions vary with different types of CPs, so I'll just give my opinions on the different types:

-- Agent CPs: I think the majority of the debate community probably disagrees with me on this, but I tend to think the Agent CPs don't disprove the aff because they don't prove a logical opportunity cost to the topic actor (the USFG). This is not to say that you couldn't win Agent CPs good in front of me, but you will have to prove an interpretation of my role as the judge as someone who has the power to decide between the USFG taking an action and some other actor (States, Other countries, etc).

-- Advantage CPs: I really like these counterplans because I think that they're good at testing contrived aff internal links. I'd say the A+ strategy would be to find advantage CPs in 1AC evidence because it makes for a more compelling CP solvency story.

-- PICs: I love a good PIC debate*. However, the most common way neg teams botch these debates is by either 1.) not properly clarifying exactly what the aff defends in 1AC cross-x, or 2.) not properly writing their CP texts. You can win different theoretical interpretations of what competition means, but it would be best if you could write your CP text so that it is both textually and functionally competitive.

PICs are also a good way to leverage smaller topic DAs, which I like.

*You're unlikely to win that a Word PIC is competitive in front of me.

-- Process CPs: I think that CPs that compete based off of the certainty or immediacy of the plan are generally sketchy but not unwinnable in front of me - I'm more likely to believe that the CP is justified if you have solvency advocate evidence in the context of the aff.

Theory

I'll vote on it if it's well explained and impacted out. The only thing I'll add here is that I tend to think that 1-2 conditional advocacies are defensible, but beyond that I'm more likely to go aff on condo bad.

Kritiks

Kritiks should disprove the affirmative. I think that kritiks tend to fail at this for two reasons: they either don't have an internal link from the aff to their impacts, or they don't present a logical opportunity cost to the aff.

- Internal links: In my experience, the link story of most Ks goes something like plan = capitalism, and then capitalism -> extinction, but it doesn't make the direct connection between the aff and the impacts to the K. I think this vulnerability opens up the K to stronger perm arguments because the aff can more easily prove that the plan is good even if the rest of the status quo is bad.

- Opportunity costs: you can refer to my thoughts on agent CPs here because the same basic logic applies. If the plan advocates an action by the USFG, and the neg advocates a grassroots movement against capitalism, I'm unlikely to think the alt disproves the affirmative/is a logically relevant consideration.

This is where framework debates come in. I think that framework can be used to prove competition for alts that do something about epistemology/ontology/etc. because it proves why the alt's approach is distinct in a way that's important enough for me to consider competitive. However, you're unlikely to win on just FW arguments: the 2NR that just says "epistemology first" and then "the aff's epistemology is capitalist/imperialist/etc." doesn't strike me as a compelling neg ballot because the epistemology arguments are really just defensive indicts to the aff.

- Side note: I tend to think that the neg should have to prove that the alt solves the impacts to the K. This is an important part of the debate that the aff should press on.

Thoughts on specific Ks -

-- Topic Ks - these are my favorite Ks, and most likely the ones that will clash best with the affirmative. However, they're also the Ks that I'm least likely to be familiar with, so they might require extra explanation.

-- Standard Ks (Security K/Cap K/Fem IR/etc.) - I'll be most familiar with these Ks, but they're often very generic and need to be explained in the context of the aff.

-- Identity Ks (Race/Gender/Sexuality/Disability/etc) - Links should be clearly explained and specific to the aff. I'm not very persuaded by links of omission or link arguments that are tied solely to state-based advocacy.

-- Language Ks - if the other team uses slurs, is outwardly rude towards someone's identity, or otherwise tries to invalidate someone's identity, I'm 100% willing to vote on these arguments. However, I think that some language Ks are more persuasive than others, so I would only suggest going for this argument if the language is particularly egregious.

Topicality (vs traditional affs)

I like topicality debates. That being said, I think that your T argument becomes exponentially more persuasive when you can develop a topical caselist or, better yet, a topical version of the aff. The reverse is also true: if the neg can't provide a vision of what their interpretation looks like, I'm more likely to be persuaded by aff characterizations of the neg interp being overlimiting.

I default to reasonability. This means that, absent an alternative framing for the T debate, I'll vote aff if the affirmative is able to win sufficient defense to the negative's interpretation, even in the absence of substantial affirmative offense.

Topicality (vs non-traditional affs)

As I said above, I believe that debate is a game. Therefore, I'll probably find arguments about procedural fairness more persuasive than arguments about changing real-world policy etc. However, the neg also have to prove the value of the game, so that requires the neg to make some claims to educational/skill-based benefits to debate.

Because I think that debate is a game, I also tend to think that rules/limits are good; this means I'd be more persuaded by an aff counterinterpretation that sets a different limit on the topic than an aff argument that we shouldn't have any limits to begin with.

I'm not inclined to think that topicality is a form of violence, but that's mostly because I don't think it's ever been adequately explained to me. I could see myself voting on this argument, but it would require a lot of explanation on the part of the aff.

K vs K aff debates

I'll admit that I have almost no experience with these kind of debates. The depth of my knowledge on this subject does not extend past the phrase "no perms in a method debate", which is a statement I don't understand. In a debate like this, both sides will have to do a lot of explanation of how the aff/alt/perm function and how they relate to each other.

Ryan Galloway

Samford University

Coached for 29 years

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

Broad Strokes: I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument in the activity. While my background and research interests are primarily in the policy side of the equation, I have frequently been convinced to vote for critical arguments. I love debate and am happy to be judging you. Debate requires a lot of work and effort on your part, and I plan on returning the favor by working hard to reward your effort in the debate.

Framework: The most important thing I could say about debating this issue, or virtually any other issue, is to listen carefully to what the other team says and to answer it specifically. I find that teams on both sides of the equation become block dependent and fail to answer the nuance of what the other team says. Before last year’s NDT, I thought I was a good judge for the negative, but at the NDT I voted affirmative twice in framework debates. I would recommend more line-by-line from both sides, and less overview dependent arguments. In many framework debates I've judged, the AFF tends to overwhelm the NEG with so many arguments that the NEG can't keep up. I often encourage the NEG to go for other arguments in those situations, even if they are less scripted and rely more on analytic arguments.

Topicality: I tend to be a good judge for contextualized definitions from either side. My ideal topicality debate would be one more about what the word means in context than arbitrary definitions from both sides with appeals to limits and ground. I am more amenable to appeals to reasonable interpretations than most judges. I dislike de-contextualized interpretations that create a meaning that is not in context of the literature or field.

Kritiks generally: Here's where I think I fall on various kritikal strands:

Very good for identity kritiks, very, very bad for high theory kritiks, pretty good for IR kritiks, goodish for nuclear weapons Kritiks, pretty bad for ad hominems disguised as kritiks, do not believe you can cross-x the judge. Unlikely to believe that one theory of power or psychological drive affects everyone in every situation. Do not think the alt or even having an alt is as important as other judges if you prove the ideological or discursive justifications of the affirmative make the world worse. Do not think that there needs to be an alternative to justify permutations to the ideology inherent in the criticism. Kind of bad for tiny risks of extinction mean I should ignore all standards of morality. Think all philosophical endeavors should be geared toward helping real people in their everyday lives. Better for discourse kritiks than most judges. As a vegetarian, I have found myself more sensitive to impacts on non-humans than many.

Identity k's: history shows I'm very good for them. Not as familiar with all the authors, so you need to guide me a bit. Some familiarity with lit on Afro-pess and Afro-futurism. Not good for the logic that suggests “if you link you lose” is somehow a bad standard of evaluation for k’s.

High Theory K's: you should honestly strike me if your primary strategy is to read generic theory cards referencing a dead French or German philosopher and somehow think they apply to nuclear weapons policy in 2024. I have read a fair amount of post-modern authors, who I generally find to be dull, arrogant, incoherent, usually incorrect, and pragmatically unhelpful. I will not apply your general theory of power to specifically link turning a highly nuanced affirmative case .I feel strongly that a lot of what is happening in these high-theory debates is intellectual bankruptcy and am willing to say the emperor has no clothes. I also think I have a higher standard for evidentiary quality in these debates than most.

IR K's: I'll certainly listen to a security K, a fem IR K, Gender kritiks, Complexity Kritiks, Kritiks of realism, etc. Might need to do a little work applying them specifically to the AFF--but I'm pretty open. I think the lit is deep, credible, and important.

Nuke Weapons K's: As long as the K is an actual indictment of nuclear weapons reductions or disarmament, I'm very down. I will caution you that I think most of the cards I've read talking about "nuclear weapons discourse" are in the context of those who discuss building up nuclear weapons and justifying nuclear deterrence, and are not about reductions and disarmament policies.

Clash debates: I find them hard to judge for both sides. I think if each team would line up what they are arguing the debate is about it would be helpful. Am I evaluating the consequences of FIAT'd action? I am evaluating the AFF as a demand for state action? Am I evaluating the educational benefits of a model of a debate? Am I judging the AFF as an artifact of scholarship?

For non-traditional frameworks, having a method or metric to evaluate what the debate is about would be helpful. How do I assess what is good scholarship? What are the benefits of endorsing a particular model of debate?

I've been told I am a k hack. Perhaps. I have been accused of being erratic in clash debates, wracked with guilt, and apply an offense/defense paradigm where it is inappropriate. It is possible that all of these criticisms may be true or false to some extent. I try and judge the debate I’m watching without a pre-prepared standard of evaluation.

Teams that directly engage the argument of the other team and not use generic framing issues tend to do better in front of me. Engage the scholarship directly, even if you don't have cards. Be willing to talk about how your affirmative operates in the framework established by the other team. Be responsive and think on your feet. Surprisingly good for pragmatism and incrementalism arguments. If the k answer fell out of flavor in the mid to late nineties, I probably really like the argument. I am completely uninterested in proving my kritik credentials or proving that I am down with whomever is the new hot theorist making the coffee shop rounds.

Disads and risk: Framing arguments on risk are very important to me. I flow them and will try to evaluate the debate on the terms that you set up. I try to not have a pre-planned position on how to evaluate these arguments. As with most arguments, less overview and more line-by-line is better. I like when teams use their evidence, even if it is not specific, to make link arguments specific to the affirmative. I view evidence as part of the tool-kit that you have, and the specific arguments you make about your evidence are very important to me. Evidence alone is not an argument. The use of evidence to make an argument is a fundamental component of debate.

Counterplans: I enjoy nuanced counterplan debates made specific to the plan/counterplan in the debate. I dislike littering the flow with permutations and generic theory arguments. I like smart counterplans that solve the internal link of the affirmative. I like theory debates where either team responds to what is happening in the debate they are engaged in, as opposed to abstractions. I lean pretty heavily for the neg on conditionality.

Theory: I'm much better for "if they get 'x' we get 'y' then they absolutely should not get 'x' under any circumstances. I like strategic concessions on theory to justify arguments elsewhere on the flow. Standard theory blocks are stale and uninteresting, but if you've got an innovative theory or spin especially based on a concession of their theory, I'd be happy to listen. Standards of logic and whether something truly tests the affirmative plan or method are more persuasive to me than many others. Kind of not good for appeals to time skews and hypothetical strategy skews that are likely non-existent.

Novice Debate: I love novice debate and am so happy to be judging you. Novice is my favorite division to judge. I tend to reward novices who make smart arguments using their own logic to attack the other teams’ arguments. I tend to also reward specific line by line debating, so answer what the other team has to say specifically. Feel free to ask me lots of questions at the end of the debate about style, arguments, the decision, etc.

I have eased off some of my prior criticisms of the way novice is coached, but I will still tend to reward substantive arguments as opposed to arguments I view as cheap shots. I enjoy when novices are taught skills that will benefit them throughout their debate careers, instead of those designed to trick another novice with an esoteric and widely rejected theory they just haven’t heard yet.

Ethics challenges: I strongly believe that you should email your opponent or your coaches if you find a problem with their evidence. I think most mistakes are accidental. I have personally emailed coaches who have incorrectly cited a card and found the mistake to be accidental--cutting a lot of cards with multiple windows open and accidentally putting the wrong cite on a card, etc. I think we have to have a certain measure of trust and respect to make the activity happen.

Ethics challenges are happening way too often and are becoming trivialized. If you worry that my standard for trivial is arbitrary, non-trivial suggests you have contacted your opponents, that you are 100% sure you are factually correct, and you can illustrate intent on your opponents’ parts. I believe accusing someone of being unethical is incredibly serious and the standards should be very high.

Stylistic issues:

1. I prefer if you number your arguments.
2. Arguments should be clear in the 1ac/1nc. I dislike the idea that the other team should have to read your evidence to figure out the scope of the argument. The argument should be clear upon its initial presentation.
3. I prefer clear labels to arguments--no link, non-unique, turn, etc.
4. I prefer labels to off-case positions as they happen in the debate: The Politics disad, The TNW's PIC, the Security Kritik, etc. instead of just launching into a five plank counterplan text and leave me to figure out what the thesis of the argument is.
5. I prefer specific line by line debating to doing most of the work in the overview.
6. I don't read speech docs as the debate goes on and I flow what you say, not what's in the doc.
7. I am very concerned about how stylistic and demeanor norms in the activity marginalize non-cis-dude debaters. Please don't cut off, mansplain to, talk over, berate, or not listen to non-cis-dude debaters. It is shocking to me how much this still goes on.
8. I try to judge the debate, and not the quality of the speech docs after the debate is over. I strongly disagree with judges who read all the cards and decide the debate from that.
9. I seem to be particularly sensitive to aggression in cross-x and cutting someone else off while they are trying to ask or answer a question. I think people should be quiet more and listen to the other side. I also don’t like cross-x filibustering. I don’t think cross-x should be used to “clown” or belittle your opponent. I realize I’m probably saying I believe in the opposite of everything you’ve learned about cross-x, but it’s how I feel. The best cross-x’s set up a trap that isn’t revealed until later in the debate.
10. I still believe in a place called Hope.

I debated for Samford University and am currently a graduate assistant coach at the University of Georgia.  

Be clear.

The quick checklist:

1) I consider myself a “policy judge” who privileges the importance of the link over the impact

2) I love good theory debates and am willing and ready to vote against what most call “negative flexibility”

3) Debate is a game (truth is important, but tech first) and my ballot will only determine who wins the debate, not which political stance or movement I am aligned with.

My “biases” are not harsh rules for debate. You are certainly best off doing what you usually do in front of me – I will work hard to understand your arguments, flow, and evaluate the round with as little intervention as possible. 

T: Reasonability. In order to prove the aff/neg is being unreasonable – talk about what the world of debate would look like if I endorse their interpretation. Caselists and in depth impact calculus will go a long way here. 

Theory: I am more than ready to curtail the community norm of unlimited negative flexibility. I do not think a team has to win the debate has become “impossible” in order to win an abuse claim. Topic education is paramount.

CPs: I love counterplans that test the intrinsicness of the plan to the advantages of the aff. PICs are great. Word PICs are not. I am more than ready to reject the following CPs : consult, agent Cps, international fiat, process CPs, CPs that compete off the certainty or immediacy of the plan. 

Ks: What can I say? Grad school changes a person. After years of judging, coaching, and familiarizing myself with critical arguments, I feel like I am in place to better adjudicate these debates. Still, specific links to the aff are crucial. Generic criticisms, like generic policy strategies, are boring to watch and will get you bad speaker points (and a loss).

Performance: While my experience is in policy debates, I am more than willing to listen and evaluate arguments here just as I do in those policy debates. I generally think the role of the ballot is decide who won or lost a debate (did the best debating, made the best arguments), so asking me to use my ballot to send a signal or align with a particular movement will need a strong defense. 

DAs: I will vote on zero risk of the link – you don’t need offense to beat the DA to zero. Talk about how your impact interacts with the opponent’s.  

Speaker Points: I will reward debaters for specific strategies, (good) jokes, and not stealing prep. 

Speaker point scale:

27-27.5: Did some good things, but needs a lot of improvement. Typically includes a lot of technical drops. Will not clear at a national tournament, will probably go 2-6 or worse if you debate like this every round.

27:5-28: Answered all the important arguments, but didn't do evidence comparison, sufficient impact calculus, or give me a clear way to vote for you. Will likely go 3-5. 

28-28.5: Did a lot of things right, but didn't wow me.  4-4 debating. 

28.5-29:Excelled in the cross-ex, has a positive ethos throughout the round, did evidence comparison, impact calculus, and made smart arguments and connections. You should be 5-3 or better.

29-29.5: Outstanding debating all around. You belong in the elims. No missing on points for you!

29.5-30: Rare. Reserved for the best speeches i've seen all year. 

Misc: Be aggressive. Have fun. Learn something. 

Paperless: I’m lenient. Don’t take advantage of it. 

2022 Update- I am not longer actively coaching debate. Please do not assume that I know a lot about the topic, have any idea what some other school's aff is, or have strong feelings about what obscure topic wordings mean. 

Allison.c.harper@gmail.com. - Put me on the chain please. I will not follow along with the doc or read cards I don't think are necessary to make a decision but spelling my first name is annoying and this was buried near the bottom of my philosophy.

Here are a few ways that I think my judging either differs from others or has changed with online debate:

1) I flow and do not open your speech documents during your speeches. That means you need to try to present arguments in a way that is flowable.  Make sure tags are clear. Answer arguments in an order I can follow (such as the order in which they are presented). Add structure and signpost.  Avoid reading giant analytical paragraphs without breaking things up. Avoid jumping around the flow arbitrarily or reading blocks in places where they dont belong.  Doing these things make sure that I not only have a record of what you said, but helps me understand how you think what you are saying applies/responds to your opponents arguments.  When you don't do these things, you increase the odds that I misunderstand what you think you have answered.

2) Make comparisons.  I read less evidence during and after debates than other judges. I start my decisions by looking at my flows, deciding what the key questions are, resolving things that I can, and only then look at evidence.  Make comparisons between your warrants, quality of evidence. Draw out the interactions for me rather than forcing me to do these things for you. I see that as intervention, but the way that many debaters give rebuttals these days sometimes makes it impossible to decide without that intervention. I would much rather let you do the comparing.

3) I am not in the cult of big impacts/try or die. You need to solve for something. Your counterplan needs a net benefit. I can be convinced to vote for low risk, but presumption and zero risk exist. Not everything needs a card. Smart analytics can knock down the risk of some pretty silly arguments.  If the other team does have evidence of sufficient quality, however, a card to the contrary would go a long way.

4) I don’t think I am a bad judge for the k if you debate the k technically, especially on the neg. I am not great for any argument if you are overly relying on an overview to get things done, are speaking in paragraphs without considering flowability, or are addressing components of the debate in ways that ignore the line by line. I am better for specific links and alts that I would be able to explain back to the other team what they do based on the explanation you offered in the round.  I think 90% of the time spent on “framework” when the neg reads a k is a waste of time by both sides. The neg gets links to what the aff said and did. The aff gets to weigh the implementation of the plan. Unless another way of thinking about this is presented and dropped, this is how I end up evaluating the debate anyway. I am less of a fan of critical affirmatives that are not topical, do not relate to the topic in a significant way, etc. In K aff vs framework debates, the aff is helped if I can understand what reasonable ways the negative could anticipate an aff like yours and reasonably respond to it.

5) I would rather you make link arguments to kritiks about assumptions that the other team has made during this debate rather than ask me to evaluate something that happened other debates or outside of debates. Other debates had judges who rendered their own decisions. If there are serious concerns about a debater's out of round behavior, please take that to their coaches or tournament administrators. 

6) Process debates are boring. They might be necessary on some recent topics, but they are so boring on topics where there are great disads. They would be better with some evidence that suggest this process ought to exist/be used, even better if there are cards about the topic or aff. For example, I am far more into con-con about a constitutional/legal question than con-con to withdraw from NATO. But really, wouldn’t it be cool if we picked debate topics that were actual controversies? Wouldn’t it be cool if topics that had some controversy were limited in a way that makes some sense?

7) When you steal prep time, you are stealing my decision time. Please don’t. If you are making changes to your speech doc (deleting analytics, rearranging blocks, combining multiple docs into one, etc) you should have a prep timer running. Sending a doc is fine outside of prep but should be done efficiently, especially if you are debating at the varsity/open level. Refusing to start CX until you have a marked copy is also a big waste of my time unless you are planning to ask questions that are affected by these markings. I have yet to see that happen, so let's get on with it.

8) In online debate, you MUST make an effort to be clearer. NSDA campus makes you sound like a robot eating rocks. What was passable on classrooms.cloud doesn’t cut it on campus. I should be able to understand the body of your evidence, distinguish tags from cards, etc. I do not open speech documents when you are speaking. I need to be able to hear and understand you.

9) It is much harder to pay attention to online debates. This isn’t your fault. It is a feature of the format. I have found cross-ex in particular difficult to follow and keep in focus. People talking at once is really rough online, and I appreciate attempts to limit this by keeping answers reasonable in length and not cutting off reasonable answers. I will do my best in every debate to give you every bit of attention I have, but it would help me if you would forefront cross-ex questions that might matter to your strategy. Asking the other team what they read is cross-ex time.

Old Philosophy- I don't disagree with this:

I think I am a relatively middle of the road judge on most issues. I would rather hear you debate whatever sort of strategy you do well than have you conform to my argumentative preferences. I might have more fun listening to a case/da debate, but if you best strat or skillset is something else, go for it. I might not like an argument, but I will and have voted for arguments I hate if it wins the debate. I do have a pretty strong preference for technical, line by line style debate.

I am open to listening to kritiks by either side, but I am more familiar with policy arguments, so some additional explanation would be helpful, especially on the impact and alternative level. High theory K stuff is the area where I am least well read. I generally think it is better for debate if the aff has a topical plan that is implemented, but I am open to hearing both sides. To be successful at framework debates in front of me, it is helpful to do more than articulate that your movement/project/affirmation is good, but also provide reasons why it is good to be included in debate in the format you choose. I tend to find T version of the aff a pretty persuasive argument when it is able to solve a significant portion of aff offense.

I don’t have solid preferences on most counterplan theory issues, other than that I am not crazy about consultation or conditions cps generally. Most other cp issues are questions of degree not kind (1 conditional cp and a k doesn’t seem so bad, more than that is questionable, 42 is too many, etc) and all up for debate. The above comment about doing what you do well applies here. If theory is your thing and you do it well, ok. If cp cheating with both hands is your style and you can get away with it, swell.

I have no objection to voting on “untrue” arguments, like some of the more out there impact turns. To win on dropped arguments, you still need to do enough work that I could make a coherent decision based on your explanation of the argument. Dropped = true, but you need a claim, warrant, and impact. Such arguments also need to be identifiable in order for dropped = true to apply.

It’s rarely the case that a team wins every argument in the debate, so including relevant and responsive impact assessment is super important. I’d much rather debaters resolve questions like who has presumption in the case of counterplans or what happens to counterplans that might be rendered irrelevant by 2ar choices than leaving those questions to me.

I try my best to avoid reading evidence after a debate and think debaters should take this into account. I tend to only call for evidence if a) there is a debate about what a card says and/or b) it is impossible to resolve an issue without reading the evidence myself. I prefer to let the debaters debate the quality of evidence rather than calling for a bunch of evidence and applying my own interpretations after the fact. I think that is a form of intervening. I also think it is important that you draw out the warrants in your evidence rather than relying on me to piece things together at the end of the debate. As a result, you would be better served explaining, applying, and comparing fewer really important arguments than blipping through a bunch of tag line/author name extensions. I can certainly flow you and I will be paying attention to your speeches, but if the debate comes down to a comparison between arguments articulated in these manners, I tend to reward explanation and analysis. Also, the phrase "insert re-highlighting" is meaningless to someone who isn't reading the docs in real time. Telling me what you think the evidence says is a better use of your time

I like smart, organized debates. I pay a ton of attention and think I flow very well. I tend to be frustrated by debaters who jump around or lack structure. If your debate is headed this direction (through your own doing or that of the other team), often the team that cleans things up usually benefits. This also applies to non-traditional debating styles. If you don’t want to flow, that’s ok, but it is not an excuse to lack any discernible organization. Even if you are doing the embedded clash thing, your arguments shouldn't seem like a pre-scripted set of responses with little to no attempt to engage the specific arguments made by the other team or put them in some sort of order that makes it easier for me to flow and determine if indeed arguments were made, extended dropped, etc.

Please be nice to each other. While debate is a competitive activity, it is not an excuse to be a jerkface. If you are "stealing prep" I am likely to be very cross with you and dock your speaker points. If you are taking unreasonably long amounts of time to jump/email your docs or acquire someone else's docs, I am also not going to be super happy with you. I realize this can sound cranky, but I have been subjected to too many rounds where this has been happening recently.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Thoughts on Pf and LD:

Since I occasionally judge these, I thought I should add a section. I have either coached or competed in both events. I still have a strong preference for flow-centric debate in both activities.

-You may speak as quickly or slowly as you would like. Don't make yourself debate faster than you are able to do well just because I can keep up

-You can run whatever arguments you are able to justify (see policy debate section if you have more specific questions)

-Too many debates in these events spend far too much time debating framing questions that are essentially irrelevant to judge decisions. Those frames mean little if you cant win a link. If you and your opponent are trying to access the same impact, this is a sign that you should be debating link strength not impact strength. Your speech time is short. Don't waste it.

-Make useful argument comparisons. It is not helpful if you have a study and your opponent has a study that says the opposite and that is the end of the argument. It is not helpful if everyone's authors are "hacks." With complicated topics, try to understand how your authors arrived at their conclusions and use that to your advantage.

-Stop stealing prep. Seriously. Stop. It is not cute. Asking to see a source is not an opportunity for your partners to keep prepping. If a speech timer or a prep timer isn't going, you should not be writing on your flows or doing anything else that looks like prepping. I see this in a disturbing number of PF rounds. Stop

-Give a useful road map or none at all. Do not add a bunch of commentary. A road map should tell a judge what order to put pieces of flow paper into and nothing more. Save your arguments for your speech time.

-Paraphrasing is bad. Read quotations. Send out ev in carded form ahead of time. If you are a varsity, national circuit level competitor, you should have figure out efficient ways to manage allowing the other team to review your evidence.

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

Me

Previous debater at UGA and debated in HS at a small school in GA. 
If you have any other questions, email me at camhen.debate@gmail.com - I would like to be on the email chain. 

- I won't read evidence "inserted into the debate." Debate's a communication activity and it justifies highlighting large parts of other people's ev which you couldn't read in a speech because of time constraints. I also don't know why it isn't the same as inserting a 20 min 1AC into the debate. Just read their re-highlighted ev or make broad indicts about the context of the ev. I think this practice is unethical. 

TLDR : Plans or GTFO

Prep Time ends when the jump drive leaves your computer.

I am very much so tech > truth.

Please Don't:
Be Rude or aggressive towards me, your opponent or your partner
Perform or imitate a sex act of any kind

Talk about suicide

Get naked

Please Do:
Read a plan
Defend a course of action
Defend your consequences
Have a competitive methodology

Case Debate

I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Topicality

I enjoy T debates, but please give me comparing visions of the topic (case lists are important). I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise; please put some effort into your reasonability arguments. You are fighting an uphill battle if you're trying to go for T must be a QPQ. 

Theory

Slow down. If you want me to vote on it, you have to give me time to actually write down your arguments. I have a pretty high threshold for condo with 2 or fewer condo options. More than 2 conditional advocacies is probably abusive. 

DA

The link is really important to me. 

I love good politics debate. The 1NR should do solid evidence comparison.

K

Links should be specific and well explained (there's a trend here). Don't get lost in buzzwords - make actual arguments. The aff should probably get to weigh their aff, but if they shouldn't, explain to me why. 

Too many times I see debaters forget about case – it’s still there. 
If you’re aff against the K, don’t forget your aff.  I dislike rejection alts- realistically your aff is a DA to the alt, impact it.

Death is bad. Suffering is bad. 

CP

They're cool. The more germane to the aff/topic they are, the more I will like them. 

Process CP’s are probably bad. I think you need a solvency advocate (with rare exceptions). 

K affs

are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A lot....

NonTraditional Teams
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

Flow and respond to what the other team says.

I don't have the speech doc open so do things that make it easier for me to flow. Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.

If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.

Corss-x starts right after the constructive speech ends.

Starting and stopping prep each time you need to use more prep time will cost at least 15 sec.

Very simply, if you have trigger warnings because the topics are more taboo then I am not the judge for you. If you can't explain it to your school administration or parents without them raising concerns then don't run it in front of me. Time and place are important.

Things I will not vote on (AUTO 25 Speaks):

Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.

Death is good.

Fear of death is bad

Aff's that don't defend the resolution.

Aff's that link to debate in general instead of the resolution.

Judge pref disclosure

Disclosure

Asking me to vote on something that happened before the debate round started.

Asking me to vote on something that happened after the debate round is over.

Vote for a team because they are part of a marginalized group.

Bataille

Baudrillard

Settler Colonialism

Deleuze

Psychoanalysis

ontological argument

epistemological arguments.

In fact, it would be better if you just didn't run a K.

PIC's

Condo CP's

Topical CP's

Consult CP's

conditions CP's

A Critique of Full Text Disclosure

Spreading bad

A Critique of Disclosure

Vote only for women

This list will be ongoing. I will update it to let you know.

So what is left you might ask:

Case debate

Topicality

Da's

CP's that are not listed above.

Other things you might want to know:

1. Da's can have a zero-risk.

2. Aff adv's can have zero risk

3. Solvency can have zero risk

4. Substantial will be important in these types of debates.

5. The neg will get a healthy dose of presumption.

I really would like to listen to a debate about the resolution.

Updates:

PF is different from Policy. PF shouldn't try and be policy. If you try to be policy in a PF then you won't be as successful. You don't need to spread. Few cards are better. Explaining good. Tagline extensions only are bad.

I have been judging lots of PF rounds. And here are some things you should know.

1. I am more truth over tech. I would consider it
2. You might have evid on the world is flat. It doesn't mean it is true. The other team might not have evid on the world is round. I am still going to vote on the world is round, if they say it is round without evid.
3. The more internal links you have to your impact. The less likely it is.
4. Probability is more important than possibility.
5. Having 20 cards with two-sentence each won't get you very far.
6. Cutting evidence out of context is becoming a problem. Don't do that. Seriously, don't do that.
7. The big questions on the topic matter.
8. Common sense arguments are better than stupid arguments with cards.
9. Saying the other team dropped an argument when they didn't will cost you speaker points! I am tired of hearing this and I would suggest you flow.
10. I listen to cross-x. Cross-x is binding.
11. Spreading in PF is not needed. Your time is better spent going for fewer arguments better than lots of arguments poorly. The whole point is to collapse and explain.
12. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing.

Your evidence better match your claim. It is becoming a race to the bottom with evidence. If the evidence does not match your claim then I will not evaluate that argument. simple!

Maybe I am getting old. I like what I like. If you don't want to adapt to this judge then strike me. If you have me and don't feel the need to adapt then you take the risk on what happens at the end of the round, not me.

If you have questions before the round ask me.

UPDATE: 10/27/23---- Be on time! In fact, be early.

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

I will be upfront and let everyone know that I have not judged a debate round since 1998. This is unbelievable to me because I love debate and debate has heavily influenced everything that I have done in my adult life. That said, I debated 4 years at Emory University (graduating in 1990) and coached after that at several institutions during and after graduate school. I have managed to stay minimally aware of the changes in debate since I departed, and have increased this awareness because of my sons’ participation in the activity.

General/behavioral/presentation comments:

1. Don’t be a jerk. Have fun, be funny, enjoy the experience.

2. Show me that you can think and analyze. I have always rewarded debaters who can give high level comparisons and weigh impacts.

3. I think I can still flow. I am not offended by speed as long as it is clear and you clearly tell me where you are.

4. Although I’m a dinosaur, I really don’t care if you sit/stand/stand on your head for your speeches. Intervening in your partner’s cross-ex is fine as long as you are nice to each other. I don’t love it, but sometimes you gotta do it.

5. I have not judged debates on this topic. Do not assume that I know education-related jargon or acronyms.

Fun facts to know:

1. Kritiks were just starting to appear when I extricated myself from the activity. To be honest, I thought they were pretty stupid at that time and I have softened my opinion a tiny bit in the last couple of years. However, it’s not really my thing. In addition, for some reason, I hated Philosophy in college and that never went away. I am not wired for it. If I were to sum up how I view things, I think of debate as a game and that what gets said in an individual debate round has exceedingly little impact in the outside world.

2. Affirmatives better have plans.

3. Topicality. Reasonability rules the day. Back in the day, I rarely voted on T and even then only if a mistake was made. However, I can also see where you would have to go for T if the aff is ridiculous.

4. Counterplans and disads. Yes please. Make comparisons and have good/clear stories to tell. I always loved impact turn debates.

5. Conditionality is fine.

6. I had to ask Ben Jablonski what ‘tech over truth’ meant as I was constructing this. I agree with his paradigm: “ Tech over truth -- this is always the case. If an argument is bad, beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted args, but if they did make the arguments and they had warrants for the arguments, I will draw the line on new args.”

7. I also had to ask what card clipping was. Holy crap. Do not do it. If it is egregious it will be a loss and I will nuke your points.

**Just a brief update for the high school community on the Inequality topic:

T - Taxes and Transfers - Heavily lean Aff here, but the Neg can win it I guess.

Process CPs - Good luck with these in front of me.

If you feel the need to not take prep before the 2AC or 2NC, good luck with that as well in front of me.

**Updated Summer 2023**

Yes I would like to be on the email chain: jordanshun@gmail.com

I will listen to all arguments, but a couple of caveats:

-This doesn't mean I will understand every element of your argument.

-I have grown extremely irritated with clash debates…take that as you please.

-I am a firm believer that you must read some evidence in debate. If you differ, you might want to move me down the pref sheet.

Note to all: In high school debate, there is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.
In college debate, I might allow 6 off case arguments :/

Good luck to all!

I debated for Samford University for four years, between 2008-2012.

General Info:

* Since 2012, I've mostly been out of debate, and I'm aware of - but not overly familiar with - the current topic. Please keep that in mind w/ things like acronyms.

* I think that the Aff should defend the resolution, not just be tangentially related to it.

* Civility in debate is important to me. I don't mind if you swear, but please be respectful to your opponents and to your partner. 

My former partner, Dan Bagwell, has a longer philosophy that I agree with almost 100%. Taking a look at it will give you a good idea of where I land on more granular issues - https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Dan&search_last=Bagwell

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

Tabula rasa: From the Latin for "blank slate", the judge attempts to come into the round with no predispositions. These judges typically expect debaters to "debate it out", which includes telling the judge what paradigm they should view the round in. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa)

Woodward Academy - C/O 2015

University of Alabama: Birmingham - C/O 2019

Add me to the email chain: krsh1pandey@gmail.com

***I'm coming into this season with no topic knowledge whatsoever. I can keep up with general arguments and the flow of speeches just fine; however, you may find it worth your while to take time to explain more specific/niche acronyms that pop up throughout the course of the debate.

Last Updated/Written prior to: The Fall 2018 Chattahoochee Cougar Classic

Background: Debate at Woodward Academy for 3 years. Was pretty much exclusively the 2N/1A. I'm 4 years out of the activity now so I'm not very familiar with many new community norms that have developed since my time debating.

Meta/Activity Preferences:

1) Prep time: I won't take prep for emailing speech docs in Varsity unless it becomes excessive (I will inform you before I start taking prep off if I decide things are taking too long). I do take prep time in JV/Novice in order to facilitate rounds running on time.

2) Tag team C-X: Fine if it happens once (maybe twice); if it happens too much, it will reflect in your speaker points and my general view of how much I think you know your arguments.

3) Be nice and respectful to everyone in round (me, the other team, your partner).

Critical/Performance/Non-traditional/No Plan Affs - I enjoy listening to anything that you as the affirmative feel comfortable presenting. I'm highly unlikely to vote for arguments that I find morally reprehensible. But if you are reading high theory or some other very obscure affirmative, you will have a higher burden of explanation if I'm not too well versed with the literature.

Theory - Smart theory debates are fun, but bad theory debates are some of my least favorite to watch (probably second only to a round involving ethics violations or a bad T debate). I usually lean neg when it comes to conditionality.

T - If you can do it well then go for it; I do tend to lean Aff on questions of topicality.

Feel free to ask for clarification or other specific questions before round if you have them! Bear in mind, these are just general thoughts/observations that I hold going into the round; they are not set-in-stone viewpoints.

Updated for 2023-2024 Season

Please put me on the speech thread! Thank you.

Email: thelquinn@gmail.com

Titles: Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).

Meta-thoughts:

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you researched.

Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it. I will likely say clear though, it's nothing personal.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs to prevent clipping. At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions.

Education/Debate Background:

Wake Forest University: 2011-2015. Top Speaker at ADA Nationals my Junior Year. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin. Pittsburgh Round Robin.

Mountain Brook High School: 2007-2011. 3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals.

Policy Thoughts:

Tl;dr: Offense/defense, the algorithm, cards are currency. UQ determines link unless otherwise said. Willing to pull the trigger on T/theory.

Flow: Most debaters should make analytics off their flows, especially in digital debate. Conversely, if you include analytics on your speech doc but I do not find you clear but I recognize where you are on your speech doc, I will not consider them arguments.

Condo: Im largely ok with conditionality. I think the best aff args against conditional are against contradictory conditional options. I do not really like the counter-interp of dispo. Im a much bigger fan of CI is non-contradictory conditional options.

• 3 or less non contradictory conditional options is ok to me
• 2 contra condo is fine
• 3 contradictory condo (including a K) and I am willing to vote on contra condo bad.
• For new affs, I think at most 5 contra condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.
• I think negs should take the 2 seconds it takes to have a CI that isn't "what we did." "What we did" is not really a good CI in debates.

CP Theory: If the 2AC straight turns your disad, no amount of theory will justify a 2NC CP out of/around the straight turned DA. 2NC CP's vs addons are different and chill/encouraged. Generic Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs cause me to lean aff on theory/perm, unless you have a good solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate/perm do CP against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.

I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you.

T: My "favorite" standards are predictable limits (debatability) and real-world context (literature/education). I think a topicality interp that has both of those standards I will err on. Evidence that is both inclusive and exclusive is the gold standard. I tend to be more moderate with reasonability. I am not in the cult of limits. I err aff if I believe your interpretation is "reasonable" and that the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if their interpretation is slightly better.

Kritikal Debate. I vote off the flow, which means my opinions on K debate are secondary to my voting. And I was 4-0 for Wake BD last year in some big debates against policy teams, so I'm going to vote for the team that I thought did the better debating (But are you Wake BD?). Im not really opposed to kritiks on the negative that are tied to the plan/resolution or kritikal affirmatives that defend a topical plan of action. I think where I draw the line is that I'm not a good judge for more performance based "affirmatives/negatives" that neither affirm nor negate the plan text/resolution. I lean very heavily neg on FW v non or anti-topical K affs. I think a good topical version of the affirmative is the best argument on FW. The role of the judge is to vote for the team who does the better debating. Debate is an educational game we play on the weekend with friends. I will not evaluate arguments that derive from actions/events out of the debate I am judging. Fairness is an impact and intrinsically good. I do not believe the ballot has material power to change the means of production/structures and thinking it does may even be problematic.

Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by inevitability and alt cause args.

This is my twenty sixth year as an active member of the policy debate community. After debating in both high school and college I immediately jumped into coaching high school policy debate. I have been an argument coach, full time debate instructor, program director, and argument coach again for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami, FL for the past seventeen years.

I become more convinced every year that the switch side nature of policy debate represents one of the most valuable tools to inoculate young people against dogmatism. I also believe the skills developed in policy debate – formulating positions using in depth research that privileges consensus, expertise, and data and the testing of those positions via multiple iterations—enhance students’ ability to think critically.

I am particularly fond of policy debate as the competitive aspect incentivizes students to keep abreast of current events and use that information to formulate opinions regarding how various levels of government should respond to societal needs.

Equipping students with the skills to meaningfully engage political institutions has been incredibly valuable for me. Many of my debate students have been Latina/Latinx. Witnessing them develop an expert ability to navigate institutions, that were by design obfuscated to ensure their exclusion, continues to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I am constantly grateful for that privilege.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing trend toward clash avoidance. This practice makes debate seem more trivial each year and continues to denigrate our efforts in the eyes of the academics we depend on for funding and support.

Affirmatives continue to lean into vague plan writing and vague explanations of what they will defend. This makes for late breaking and poorly developed debates. I understand why students engage in these practices (the competitive incentive I lauded above) I wish instructors and coaches understood how much more meaningful their contributions would be if they empowered students to embrace clash over gimmicks.

I will be less persuaded by your delivery if you choose to engage in clash avoidance. Actions such as deleting analytics, refusal to specify plans, cps, and K alts, allowing your wiki to atrophy, and proliferating stale competition style and Intrinsicness arguments will result in my awarding fewer speaker points.

Remember your friends’ hot takes and even your young coaches/lab leaders’ hot takes are just that – they are likely not the debates most of your critics want to adjudicate.

If you are not flowing during the debate, it will be difficult to persuade me that you were the most skilled debater in the room.

Be “on deck.” By that I mean be warmed up and ready for your turn at bat. Have your table tote set up, the email thread ready, you pens/paper/timer out, your laptop charged, go to the restroom before the round, fill up your water bottle, etc. I don’t say all this to sound like a mean teacher – in fact I think it would be incredibly ableist to really harp on these things or refuse to let students use the facilities mid-round – but being ready helps the round proceed on time and keeps you in the zone which helps your ability to project a confident winning persona. It also demonstrates a consideration for me, your opponents, your coaches and teammates and the tournament staffs’ time.

Be kind and generous to everyone.

You can likely deduce most of this from the discussion of clash avoidance and why I value debate above.

I would prefer to see a debate wherein the affirmative defends the USFG should increase security cooperation with the NATO over AI, Biotech, and/or cybersecurity.

I would like to see the negative rejoin with hypothetical disadvantages to enacting the plan as well as introducing competing proposals for resolving the harms outlined by the affirmative.

One of the more depressing impacts to enrolling in graduate school has been the constant reminder that in truth impact d is >>> than impact ev. A few years ago, I was increasingly frustrated by teams only extending a DA and impact defense vs. the case – I thought this was responsible for a trend of fewer and fewer affirmatives with intrinsic advantages. I made a big push for spending at least 50% of the time on each case flow vs the internal link of the advantage. My opinion on this point is changing. Getting good at impact defense is tremendously valuable – you are likely examining peer reviewed highly qualified publications and their debunking of well…less than qualified publications.

I find Climate to be one of the most strategic and persuasive impacts in debate (life really). That said, most mechanisms to resolve climate presented in debates are woefully inadequate.

I am not averse to any genre of argument. Every genre has highs and lows. For example, not all kritiks are generic or have cheating alternatives, not all process counterplans are unrelated to the topic, and not all politics disadvantages are missing fundamental components but sometimes they are and you should work to avoid those deficiencies.

The folks with whom I see debate similarly:

Maggie Berthiaume

Dr. Brett Bricker

Anna Dimitrijevic

David Heidt

Fran Swanson

Sammi Rippetoe

Director of Debate @ DePauw University

University of Georgia, PhD

Communication Graduate Student, Assistant Debate Coach, Wake Forest University '15-'17

I competed for Humboldt State University in Worlds style (or Brittish Parlimentary) for 4 years.

Please add me to your email chains (as proof that you read these things)- sjrippetoe@gmail.com

Top level things

I will reward debaters with better speaker points for a good cross-x that helps their overall strategy in the debate.

If you describe graphic violence (sexual or otherwise) a trigger warning would be greatly appreciated by me, and the other debaters.

Rebuttals are for story-telling, if I'm not interested in buying what you're selling I'm probably not voting for you.

I don't feel personally responsible to read all of your evidence after the debate.  Your job is to explain to me why certain pieces of evidence should be considered/read, if you don't do that, I won't take the time to read them.  This is debate, not Sammi's research hour.

Topicality

Love em, read some cards, make some args.  I am pretty persuaded by reasonability, especially when the aff has a community norm argument behind them, but I'm not wedded to the concept enough that you can't persuade me otherwise.  If we can avoid spec-type violations, that would be nice (but hey you do you).

Counterplans and Disads

Love em.  The more specific they are to the aff, the more I am willing to buy negative spin/negative sufficiency framing arguments.  Impact calc is super important, but don't confuse the timeframe or probability of your impact with that of your internal links.  Most teams do, and that's not fun.  Make sure you don't lose sight of your disad (and conversely, your aff) by the end of the debate, it's not only about comparing terminal impacts so don't lose the story for what you're selling me.

Theory

I don't have a strong preference on any particular theory arguments, but I will vote on them if well impacted and debated beyond the annoying re-reading of blocks in the 1ar and 2nr.  The caveat to this, however, is that I will not kick a CP for the negative if it is extended in the 2nr.  You forfeited your right to the status quo, deal with it.  I'm not against multiple counterplans being read in the same debate, but I do believe the enjoyment of a debate correlates to how well crafted (wink-wink) the negatives strategy is.  Do not see what sticks.

The K

Most of my thoughts from the next two categories apply here.  I will say, have links specific to the plan, with impacts to those link arguments.  Root cause arguments aren't super persuasive to me, unless you can prove that the root cause prevents the aff's specific internal link from solving whatever impact is in question.  

Non-Traditional Affs

My general feelings about them is that they should be in the direction of the topic, and they should change something in the status quo. While this doesn't necessitate a plan text, the aff should have a method that defends some action/change.  I am not a fan of affs that don't do anything, or believe that just pontificating is enough to win the round. You have to prove that your aff is important and creates positive change, not just that it analyzes something (what does that analysis do? And why should I vote for it as a positive change to status quo?). I am very persuaded by presumption when the aff hasnt proven that they do anything.  

Framework

These debates can often can be good, but generally are not.  You all read blocks like it's your job, and they are way too generic.  I'm really persuaded by specific link arguments for things like limits or ground da's that point to in round examples to validate them, and TVA's that are well developed and actually specific to either the aff's method or the impact the aff is attempting to resolve.  I do not believe fairness is an impact on it's own, it's an internal link to variety of other impacts.  

Language Args

These are persuasive, you should not be violent with your language. If you go against a team that you feel has been violent with their word choice, you should make it an argument in the round. Performative consistency is important. You do have to be clear about what the impact of their bad language is, and why I should care about it. You can't just say "this is offensive" with no impact and expect me to fill in the blanks. 

2N for 3 years at Alpharetta HS 

 put me on the email chain: shreyamsachdeva@gmail.com

TLDR: We're all here to have fun so be respectful towards the other team and me. I won't vote on anything unethical (death is bad, racism is bad, and sexism is bad). I'm pretty policy and not well versed in K lit, but I'll vote on anything as long as it is explained well. 

Case: I love a good case debate. Aff explain your impacts and the internal link chain especially if it's complicated. The neg should not undercover case and read a bunch of offcase. The neg should still go on case even if they go for a CP in the 2NR. 

DAs: I love DAs, especially PTX. Neg, be sure to impact things out (especially in novice) and make turns case arguments. Also, explain the link story in the block especially on DAs like PTX. 

T: I don't really like T debates especially on this topic but if you are gonna go for it you have to explain it really well. Neg, don't just spit out a bunch of buzzwords but actually explain your arguments. The limits portion of the debate is really important so spend a lot of time on it. 

K: I love K debates, but I am only familiar with generics like fem, cap, neolib, and security. In order to win the debate, the neg must contextualize the K to the aff. I will not vote on anything unethical.  

CP: CPs are great especially specific ones. The aff can win on CP theory if they impact it out well. If the aff goes for a perm they have to explain how it functions. Neg, answer each perm individually and do some actual analysis on them. 

K affs: I am not very familiar with K literature but am willing to vote on anything that is not unethical. 

Debated 4 years Marquette University HS (2001-2004)

Assistant Coach – Marquette University HS (2005-2010)

Head Coach – Marquette University HS (2011-2012)

Assistant Coach – Johns Creek HS (2012-2014)

Head Coach – Johns Creek HS (2014-Current)

Yes, put me on the chain: bencharlesschultz@gmail.com

No, I don’t want a card doc.

Its been a long time since I updated this – this weekend I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned that I have "made it clear I wasn’t interested in voting for the K”. Since I actually love voting for the K, I figured that I had been doing a pretty bad job of getting my truth out there. I’m not sure anyone reads these religiously, or that any paradigm could ever combat word of mouth (good or bad), but when I read through what I had it was clear I needed an update (more so than for the criticism misconception than for the fact that my old paradigm said I thought conditionality was bad – yeesh, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote THAT….)

Four top top shelf things that can effect the entire debate for you, with the most important at the top:

11) Before I’m a debate judge, I’m a teacher and a mandatory reporter. I say this because for years I’ve been more preferred as a critical judge, and I’ve gotten a lot of clash rounds, many of which include personal narratives, some of which contain personal narratives of abuse. If such a narrative is read, I’ll stop the round and bring in the tournament director and they will figure out the way forward.

22) I won’t decide the debate on anything that has happened outside of the round, no matter the quality of evidence entered into the debate space about those events. The round starts when the 1AC begins.

33) If you are going to the bathroom before your speech in the earlier speeches (constructives through 1nr, generally) just make sure the doc is sent before you go. Later speeches where there's no doc if you have prep time I can run that, or I'll take off .4 speaks and allow you to go (probably a weird thing, I know, but I just think its stealing prep even though you don't get to take flows or anything, just that ability to settle yourself and think on the positions is huge)

44) No you definitely cannot use extra cross-ex time as prep, that’s not a thing.

5

55) Finally, some fun. I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it. So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows. I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do! By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points

Top Shelf:

This is stuff that I think you probably want to know if you’re seeing me in the back

· I am liable probably more than most judges to yell “clear” during speeches – I won’t do it SUPER early in speeches because I think it takes a little while for debaters to settle into their natural speed, and a lot of times I think adrenaline makes people try and go faster and be a little less clear at the start of their speeches than they are later. So I wait a bit, but I will yell it. If it doesn’t get better I’ll yell one more time, then whatever happens is on you in terms of arguments I don’t get and speaker points you don’t get. I’m not going to stop flowing (or at least, I never have before), but I also am not yelling clear frivolously – if I can’t understand you I can’t flow you.

· I don’t flow with the doc open. Generally, I don’t open the doc until later in the round – 2nc prep is pretty generally when I start reading, and I try to only read cards that either are already at the center of the debate, or cards that I can tell based on what happens through the 2ac and the block will become the choke points of the round. The truth of the debate for me is on the flow, and what is said by the debaters, not what is said in their evidence and then not emphasized in the speeches, and I don’t want to let one team reading significantly better evidence than the other on questions that don’t arise in the debate influence the way I see the round in any way, and opening the doc open is more likely than not to predispose me towards one team than another, in addition to, if I’m reading as you go, I’m less likely to dock you points for being comically unclear than if the only way I can get down what I get down is to hear you say it.

Argumentative Stuff

Listen at the end of the day, I will vote for anything. But these are arguments that I have a built in preference against. Please do not change up your entire strategy for me. But if the crux of your strategy is either of these things know that 1 – I probably shouldn’t be at the top of your pref card, and 2 – you can absolutely win, but a tie is more likely to go to the other side. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible (heck I’ve voted for death good multiple times! Though that is an arg that may have more relevance as you approach 15 full years as a public school DoD….) but these args don’t do it for me. I’ll try and give a short explanation of why.

1. I’m not a good judge for theory, most specifically cheap shots, but also stuff seen as more “serious” like conditionality. Its been a long long time since anyone has gone for theory in front of me – the nature of the rounds that I get means there’s not usually a ton of negative positions – which is good because I’m not very sympathetic to it. I generally think that the negative offense, both from the standpoint of fairness and education, is pretty weak in all but the most egregious rounds when it comes to basic stuff like conditionality. Other counterplan theory like no solvency advocate, no international fiat, etc I’m pretty sympathetic to reject the argument not the team. In general, if you’re looking at something like conditionality where the link is linear and each instance increases the possibility of fairness/education impacts, for me you’ve got to be probably very near to, or even within, double digits for me to think the possible harm is insurmountable in round. This has come up before so I want to be really clear here – if its dropped, GO FOR IT, whether alone or (preferably) as an extension in a final rebuttal followed by substance. I for sure will vote for it in a varsity round (in novice rounds, depending on the rest of the round, I may or may not vote on it). Again – this is a bias against an argument that will probably effect the decision in very close rounds.

2. Psychoanalysis based critical literature – I like the criticism, as I mentioned above, just because I think the cards are more fun to read and more likely to make me think about things in a new way than a piece of counterplan solvency or a politics internal link card or whatever. But I have an aversion to psychoanalysis based stuff. The tech vs truth paragraph sums up my feelings on arguments that seem really stupid. Generally when I see critical literature I think there’s at least some truth to it, especially link evidence. But

3. Cheap Shots – same as above – just in general not true, and at variance with what its fun to see in a debate round. There’s nothing better than good smart back and forth with good evidence on both sides. Cheap shots (I’m thinking of truly random stuff like Ontology Spec, Timecube – stuff like that) obviously are none of those things.

4. Finally this one isn’t a hard and fast thing I’m necessarily bad for, but something I’ve noticed over the years that I think teams should know that will effect their argumentative choices in round – I tend to find I’m less good than a lot of judges for fairness as a standalone impact to T-USFG. I feel like even though its never changed that critical teams will contend that they impact turn fairness, or will at least discuss why the specific type of education they provide (or their critique of the type of education debate in the past has provided), it has become more in vogue for judges to kind of set aside that and put sort of a silo around the fairness impact of the topicality debate and look at that in a vacuum. I’ve just never been good at doing that, or understanding why that happens – I’m a pretty good judge still for framework, I think, but youre less likely to win if you go for a fairness impact only on topicality and expect that to carry the day

Specific Round Types:

K Affs vs Framework

Clash rounds are the rounds I’ve gotten by far the most in the last 5-8 years or so, and generally I like them a lot and they consistently keep me interested. For a long time during the first generation of critical affirmatives that critique debate/the resolution I was a pretty reliable vote for the affirmative. Since the negative side of the no plan debate has caught up, I’ve been much more evenly split, and in general I like hearing a good framework press on a critical aff and adjudicating those rounds. I think I like clash rounds because they have what I would consider the perfect balance between amount of evidence (and specificity of evidence) and amount of analysis of said evidence. I think a good clash round is preferable than almost any round because there’s usually good clash on the evidentiary issues and there’s still a decent amount of ev read, but from the block on its usually pure debate with minimal card dumpage. Aside from the preference discussed above for topicality based framework presses to engage the fairness claims of the affirmative more, I do think that I’m more apt than others to vote negative on presumption, or barring that, to conclude that the affirmative just gets no risk of its advantages (shoutout Juliette Salah!). One other warning for affirmatives – one of the advantages that the K affords is that the evidence is usually sufficiently general that cards which are explained one way (or meant to be used one way) earlier in the round can become exactly what the negative doesn’t need/cant have them be in the 2ar. I think in general judges, especially younger judges, are a little biased against holding the line against arguments that are clearly new or cards that are explained in a clearly different way than they were originally explained. Now that I’m old, I have no such hang ups, and so more than a lot of other judges I’ve seen I’m willing to say “this argument that is in the 2ar attached to (X) evidence is not what was in the 1ar, and so it is disallowed”. (As an aside, I think the WORST thing that has happened to, and can happen to, no plan teams is an overreliance on 1ar blocks. I would encourage any teams that have long 1ar blocks to toss them in the trash – if you need to keep some explanations of card warrants close, please do, but ditch the prewritten blocks, commit yourself to the flow, and listen to the flow of the round, and the actual words of the block. The teams that have the most issue with shifting argumentation between the 1ar and the 2ar are the teams that are so obsessed with winning the prep time battle in the final 2 rebuttals that they become over dependent on blocks and aren’t remotely responsive to the nuance of a 13 minute block that is these days more and more frequently 13 minutes of framework in some way shape or form)

K vs K

Seems like its more likely these days to see clash rounds for me, and next up would be policy rounds. I’d actually like to see more K v K rounds (though considering that every K team needs to face framework enough that they know exactly how to debate it, and its probably more likely/easier to win a clash round than a K v K round on the negative, it may be more strategic to just go for framework on the neg if you don’t defend the USFG on the aff), and I’d especially love to see more well-argued race v high theory rounds. Obviously contextualization of very general evidence that likely isn’t going to be totally on point is the name of the game in these rounds, as well as starting storytelling early for both sides – I’d venture to say the team that can start telling the simple, coherent story (using evidence that can generally be a tad prolix so the degree of difficulty for this is high) early will be the team that generally will get the ballot. The same advice about heavy block use, especially being blocked out into the 1ar, given above counts here as well.

Policy v policy Rounds

I love them. A good specific policy round is a thing of beauty. Even a non-specific counterplan/DA round with a good strong block is always great. As the season goes on its comparatively less likely, just based on the rounds I usually get, that I’ll know about specific terminology, especially deeply nuanced counterplan terminology. I honestly believe good debaters, no matter their argumentative preference or what side of the (mostly spurious) right/left divide in debate you’re on, are good CASE debaters. If you are negative and you really want to back up the speaker point Brinks truck, a 5+ minute case press is probably the easiest way to make that happen.

Individual argument preferences

I’ll give two numbers here – THE LEFT ONE about how good I think I am for an argument based on how often I actually have to adjudicate it, and THE RIGHT ONE will be how much I personally enjoy an argument. Again – I’ll vote for anything you say. But more information about a judge is good, and you may as well know exactly what I enjoy hearing before you decide where to rank me. 1 being the highest, 10 being the lowest.

T (classic) --------------------------------------- 5/4

T (USFG/Framework) ------------------------ 1/1

DA ------------------------------------------------ 3/2

CP ------------------------------------------------- 4/2

Criticism ----------------------------------------- 1/2

Policy Aff --------------------------------------- 2/2

K Aff ---------------------------------------------- 1/3

Theory ------------------------------------------- 8/9

Cheap Shots ------------------------------------ 10/10

Post Round:

I feel like I’ve gotten more requests lately to listen to redos people send me. I’m happy to do that and give commentary if folks want – considering I saw the original speech and know the context behind it, it only makes sense that I would know best whether the redo fixes the deficiencies of the original. Shoot me an email and I’m happy to help out!

Any other questions – just ask!

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

PRONOUNS: they/them/theirs

mstekl@stanford.edu -- please put me on the email chain

PhD student @ Stanford, in Modern Thought and Literature

Emory '19 (did not debate; judged on the GA circuit for 4 years)

Bishop Guertin '15 (debated on the national circuit, went to the TOC, etc. etc.)

***UPDATE for Berkeley 2020: This will be my first tournament on the topic. Please do not assume any familiarity with the topic or especially with any topic-specific acronyms. You can spread, but clarity is paramount as always — clarity over speed any day, but today more than ever!***

My favorite judges in high school were jon sharp, Calum Matheson, and Jarrod Atchinson.

In general, you should not change what you do because you have me in the back of the room. As a debater, I tended to be pretty flexible, alternating frequently between "critical" and "policy" positions. This is your space to argue, not mine, so I will vote for the arguments on the flow that yield the path of least intervention. Pure objectivity being impossible, I nonetheless do my best to keep my subjective argumentative preferences out of the picture. That said, I'm not quite a blank slate; for instance, I won't be persuaded by racism/sexism/etc. good, or by any unapologetically discriminatory positions or practices.

I’m pretty well versed in K lit – I study theory at a graduate level, so I should have some degree of familiarity with whatever you choose to read. I'm an especially good judge for any brand of poststructuralism, including those concerned with questions of identity. Obviously, this doesn't mean that you can rely on buzzwords to get out of explaining your argument; it does mean, too, that I'll know if you have no idea what you're talking about. You should have at least a working knowledge of the position you are asking me to vote for, which requires you to do at least some cursory background reading and thinking. Then, bring your knowledge of critical theory to bear on the particulars of the aff, balancing overarching framing questions with specific link and impact analysis.

I'm not convinced that the aff must defend governmental action. Which is only to say that I will not enter the room with any dogmatic biases against plan-less affirmatives. That said, I probably enjoy a good framework debate more than most, and find myself voting for framework as often as I vote against it. Still, I don't think it should be your only strategy against all K affs; I will be more persuaded if you at least make an effort to substantively engage the aff. Of course, particularly obscure affs or those lacking a consistent advocacy will tend to be harder to defend against framework than core, topic-specific K affs.

***UPDATE September 2018: As I've judged more debates, I've become increasingly wary of framework as a default negative strategy against K affs. In my experience, framework very often becomes a lazy cop-out, even an excuse to avoid debating the substance of the aff. I can still be convinced that this is not always the case, and I will continue to evaluate framework debates technically, but it is on framework debaters to prove the value of their strategy.***

I think I tend to prioritize evidence quality less than most judges. Not that good cards aren't important – they're the pillars of your argument – but they can't replace good analysis. Depending on your argumentative genre of choice, it may be better to establish your position through evidence-reading or through your own explanation in the constructives; but in most cases, I'd rather you invest more time in nuanced and specific applications of your argument than read another card. In the final rebuttals, you absolutely shouldn't rely on your cards to do the work for you – extensions should be much more substantive than simple author name-drops. If you can't explain your author's argument, as well as its implications for the debate, I won't explain it for you.

Clear! I'll take clarity over speed any day. You should be comprehensible enough that I can understand the text of your cards. I will not call for cards after the debate if I was unable to understand them when you read them; I only read evidence for the sake of refreshing my memory.

Chill out. While antagonism is inevitable in this competitive forum and may even enhance debates in limited doses, I maintain that debaters too often take aggression to unhealthy extremes. Outside of a small number of "critical" strategies that benefit performatively from hostility, there is no reason to deliberately be an asshole to the other team, or – especially – to your partner (!!seriously!! if I can hear you yelling at your partner during prep time, you're doing something wrong). Jokes can also help ease the tension.

Speaks – Points vary by tournament (i.e. I'll give higher points at Samford than at the NDCA). Generally speaking, I'm a bit of a point fairy. Methods for improving your speaks include innovative, specific strategies and clear logical organization. Humor is the icing on the cake.

30 – Among the best speakers I’ve ever heard: you should be top speaker and win the tournament. A+
29.5-29.9 – Outstanding: expect to be one of the top 5 speakers – you should be able to make it to late elims. A
29-29.4 – Very impressive: a noteworthy performance with quite little room for improvement; you deserve to be among the top 20 speakers. A-
28.6-28.9 – High average: you are in or near the top of your division; with any luck – and, more surely, with just a little more practice – you should be able to break. B/B+
28-28.5 – Average: you're doing well, but still need to iron out some remaining issues with your clarity of speech or of argument. B-
27.5-27.9 – Low average: you have potential, but displayed: a) notable problems with both speaking and argument development, or b) more serious problems in one of the two areas. C/C+
27-27.4 – Below average: your performance was passable, but suffered from critical issues of both style and content. C-
26.5-26.9 – Needs improvement: you spoke poorly, made major strategic mistakes, and likely dropped some important arguments. D
26-26.4 – Needs major improvement: you failed to answer a majority of your opponent’s arguments and made some manner of unforgivable mistake. D-
0-25 – You did something offensive. F

Clipping will result in an immediate loss and the lowest speaks allowed by the tournament. I will follow along with the speech doc and record the debate; if I catch you clipping, I will stop the round you even if your opponent doesn’t call you on it.

This is not, in fact, your CX.

*** Update March 2019: YES TKO PLEASE TKO! Far too many debates drag on painfully long after they (should) have technically ended. For this reason, I am following B. Manuel's paradigm and urging you to invoke "total knock-out" mode if the other team makes an utterly irredeemable mistake – e.g., double turn, dropped T or a K, etc. Of course, you must stake the round on this; if you can pull it off (i.e., if you can satisfactorily extend the dropped/devastating argument while covering all your bases, e.g., answering condo if going for a dropped K...), then you will win the round after your speech and receive 30s. If you are unsuccessful, you lose and get a hard cap of 27.5. ***

Director of Debate at Westminster 2013-2021, lawyer, college and high school debater before that -- but slow it down some if you want your arguments to make it to my flow, which is usually on paper.

It is unlikely that I can flow the tiny details of your pre-written blocks.

I definitely do not know the details of your politics DA or answers, or topicality arguments that were devloped from some obscure 1879 state court ruling - please understand that I am evaluating your argument based on what you say in the round, although I will look at cards if you give me reason to.

Don't assume, and explain well.

Quick thoughts:

1) Make your speeches flowable. I will not be able to flow (and likely will not catch) all the details if you are reading pre-written blocks at top speed with no breaks or changes in inflection. If you're going to read blocks, try to at least pretend you're not reading blocks by having breaks between arguments, emphasizing tags, slowing it down a little on analytics, etc. You are also a lot more likely to hold my attention to details and help me not miss stuff that way. I will reward your speaker points if you do a good job of this.

You would be shocked at how many "good" judges think the same thing about block-reading and the above advice, and how little some judges are flowing, or even catching, of what you think you said.

2) I disagree with approaches that make the personal identity of the debaters in the round relevant to the decision in the debate, especially for high-school-aged students, and I am also not a good judge for these debates because I often do not understand what the judge is being asked to vote for. This does not mean you can't read K arguments or arguments about race or identity, in fact there are many K arguments that I think are true and make a lot of sense, I just don't think a teacher should in the position of ratifying or rejecting the personal identity or experiences of a teenager.

3) "Death good" is a reason to reject the team, and I may auto-vote that way even if the opponent doesn't make the argument.

4) There needs to be a fair stasis point in order to have good debates. Debate is good.

5) Theory: You are really taking your chances if you rely on a sketchy CP that requires winning a lot of theory, because I do not spend a lot of time outside of debate rounds thinking about theory. I can't tell you which way I will come down on a particular theory issue because it usually depends on what is said -- and what I flow -- in that particular round. This applies to T debates and other theory debates too.

6) If it is pretty close between the CP and the aff (or even if it isn't close), you need to give some really clear comparative explanations about why I should choose one over the other -- which you should do for any judge but make sure you do it when I'm judging.

7) I really dislike high theory and post-modernism in debate.

8) Reading cards to decide the debate: For many years I tried to judge without looking at the speech documents during the speeches, but I have recently concluded that is unrealistic because there is an entire additional level of the debate that is happening between the debaters in the speech documents. I don't think it should be that way, but I understand why it is happening. However, if the claims made about a card or set of cards are uncontested by the opponent, I am likely to assume when deciding the debate that the cards say what their reader claimed they say rather than reading both sides' cards or any of the cards.

9) I am not at all deep in the files and evidence especially for most neg arguments, so I am really judging the debate based on what you say and what your cards say as you present them in the round.

9) Links and impact calculus are really, really important, especially in the last rebuttals. However, I think lengthy pre-written overviews are not as good as 2NR/2AR (and prior) explanations based on what actually happened in the particular debate.

University of Chicago Law School c/o 2024

Emory University c/o 2021

Edina HS c/o 2017

Put me on the email chain: maggie.edina@gmail.com

**Water Updates**

I haven’t judged any water debates since camp, please keep this in mind.

**LD Updates**

I don't like frivolous theory arguments or philosophy with no application to the debate.

If you're going to posit overarching principles for deciding the debate, you need to apply it to the round.

**Online Debate Updates**

I will keep my camera on during speeches and CX unless I have wifi issues. If I have to turn my camera off to preserve my wifi connection, I apologize in advance.

****

I don't have any strong predispositions about how you should debate and will evaluate whichever arguments you choose present to me. That being said, please tell me how I should evaluate arguments in the final rebuttals so I'm not left to figure things out on my own and read cards without any instruction.

I will reward in-depth research, clash, and evidence comparison. I care about evidence quality and will probably ask you for a card doc after the debate is over.

T-USFG

I generally believe that the aff should defend hypothetical USFG action. Debate is a valuable communicative activity and fiat is a good mechanism for generating clash.

I believe that fairness is an impact. If you are aff, please connect the dots between your offense on t and how you solve it via your method or your aff.

I place a high burden on the affirmative proving an internal link to their impacts on case - if you are negative, please make arguments about this, it is so frustrating to watch neg teams just auto grant the aff solvency.

If you read a planless aff, I am more likely to vote for you if your aff is in the direction of the topic and has clear, impacted reasons why topical action is impossible in the context of your advocacy. I also like clever counter-interpretations on topicality that retain some limits but have an external impact related to your aff.

Topicality

*** CJR UPDATE - the topic is huge and so I sympathize with 2Ns going for T, I will vote for t-enact = congress if you debate it well. ***

If you’re looking for a sign not to go for T-subs in front of me, this is it.

Please don't subject me to a shallow topicality debate. If you would like to go for this argument, do a lot of impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR. It is essential to compare evidence in topicality debates, if you do not I will be forced to make a decision based on how I interpret the evidence myself.

If you are a 2N trying to go for T, consider where your ev comes from and what it says. Is it an arbitrary defense of whatever word you are suggesting the aff violates? Is your evidence only tangentially related to the topic? Does it provide a good metric for predictable limits? If the answer is no, I most likely will not be persuaded. I will not vote for limits for the sake of limits unless the aff drops T.

Theory

Conditionality is probably good, that doesn't mean I cannot be compelled otherwise.

Other CP theory stuff is open for debate, probably only a reason to reject the team.

Ks

If you decide to go for a K in front of me, please explain the relationship between your K and the outcome of the plan. Please explain why links apply to the permutation, not just the aff.

If your entire arg boils down to a k of fiat and your only impact is ressentiment, consider not preffing me.

random

i dislike when teams ask for a marked doc and then it results in 10 minutes of time between preparing the marked doc and the team receiving the marked doc. please don't be this team.

Have fun...

... but don't be a bad person, I will give you low speaker points and will be persuaded by arguments to vote against you if you are

whitakerdebates@gmail.com

Currently working with Alpharetta, previously worked with Chattahoochee. I debated throughout high school, then at the University of Oklahoma and the University of Central Oklahoma, and am now a member of U of West Georgia debate.

I’m comfortable with all speeds and styles, especially those regarding the k – I’m most familiar with poststructural + positional criticisms, though you should do whatever it is you do best – you can just as easily win with a plan, theory, framework, etc. If you want to test a sneaky new framework strategy, I'll happily adjudicate your chess match; if you're all about the Death K, well, I've done my fair share of that stuff too. Give me your best args and write my ballot. I privilege tech over truth and frequently vote for arguments that contravene my personal beliefs. I judge k affs frequently but this only thickens my belief that they need some relation to the resolution, even if only neg-neg. I thus also believe that the neg, in turn, needs to prove why either A) the aff links to harder to the k than squo does, or B) why that distinction doesn't matter - i.e. how I can vote without presumption and/or L/UQ or why presumption still goes neg, does not exist, sucks, whatever. I am not, personally, keen on the notion that presumption can flip aff, but am willing to entertain the argument and have voted on it when used to exploit a neg weakness.

I flow on paper, if you care. I'll say clear twice and then stop flowing anything incomprehensible. If you begin a speech in unsettling fashion (e.g. giving an inaccurate roadmap or jumping the gun with 400+wpm), I'll act flustered and require a few effervescently dramatic seconds to get my affairs in order. If I'm otherwise not flowing or I'm on the wrong sheet, it's because either you've created a mental backlog of arguments that I'm flowing in retrospect or I'm repackaging your arguments to make them more palatable to my flow, or both.

Some things that frustrate me: excessive rudeness (toward opponents or judges), offensive strategies (racism inevitable/good, for instance), and clipping (zeroes + L = bad time for you). The advent of digital debate brings with it a new and widespread sense of suspicion, and though I will do my best to catch any and all forms of cheating, I ask that debaters remain vigilant for it as well. Also, and I can’t believe I need to write this, please don’t engage in acts of self-harm to win my ballot (you know who you are). Instead, please demonstrate mastery of persuasion, word economy, and 2nr/2ar prescience – teams that reverse-engineer strategies and execute them methodically speech-by-speech impress me the most – a searing cross-ex is, of course, welcome – entertaining and innovative teams will be rewarded with speaker points.

A few final notes: not a huge fan of process counterplans (but I’ll still vote for them), conditionality is pretty good (as is neg fiat), link uniqueness wins k rounds, and maybe, just maybe, go for presumption.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'

Background:

USN head coach 2012-present

MBA assistant coach 2000-2002

The stuff you are looking for:

email chain: bwilson at usn.org

K Aff: Defend a hypothetical project that goes beyond the 1AC.

Framework: My general assumption is that predictable limits lead to higher quality debates. Aff, how does your method/performance center on the resolutional question in a way that adds value to this year's topic education? Why does the value of your discussion/method outweigh the benefits of a predictable, topic-focused debate?

Topicality: I am agnostic when it comes to the source of your definitions. Just tell me why they are preferable for this debate. Aff reasonability defense must be coupled with an interpretation, and RTP that interpretation. I will be honest, when it's a T round against an aff that was cut at workshop and has been run all year, I have a gut-check lean to reasonability. Competing interps becomes more compelling when there is significant offense for the interpretation.

Theory: Other than condo, a theory win means I reject the argument unless you do work explaining otherwise. For condo debates, please have a clear interpretation and reasons to reject. I am more open to theory when it is about something particular to the round and is not read from pre-written blocks.

CP's: I prefer CP's that have a solvency advocate. I think a well articulated/warranted perm can beat most plan plus, process CP's.

Politics: I like it better on topics without other viable DAs, but I am fine for these debates.

DAs: I find "turns the case" analysis more compelling at the internal link level.

Cheating: If you are not reading every word you are claiming through underlining or highlighting, that is clipping. If it seems like a one time miscue I will yell something, and unless corrected, I'll disregard the evidence. If it is egregious/persistent, I will be forced to intervene with an L.

If the other team raises a dispute. I will do my best to adjudicate the claim and follow the above reasoning to render a penalty either to dismiss the evidence in question or reject the team. I think I have a fairly high threshold for rendering a decision on an ethics challenge.

RIP wiki paradigms, or how my paradigm started for years but is now showing its age:

I like it when debaters think about the probability of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. If it is a policy v critical debate, the framing is important, but not in a prior question, ROB, or "only competing policy options" sense. The better team uses their arguments to access or outweigh the other side. I think there is always a means to weigh 1AC advantages against the k, to defend 1AC epistemology as a means to making those advantages more probable and specific. On the flip side, a thorough indictment of 1AC authors and assumptions will make it easier to weigh your alternative, ethics, case turn, etc. Explain the thesis of your k and tell me why it it is a reason to reject the affirmative.

I'm a former policy debater from Samford University and started debating as a novice my first year in college (2016). I qualified to the NDT twice (2017-2018, 2018-2019). I spent my last year in college coaching Novice and JV teams at Samford. I am currently a 3L in law school.

Update for August 2022: Hi! This is my first-time judging debate in a while, so please realize that I may not have the deepest topic specific knowledge. Please take time to explain out your arguments and don't assume that I've done prior topic specific research. 

I'm very much a "you do you" type of judge and want the debate to be what the debaters want it to be about, that said I do have some preferences:

For the Neg:

1. Disads

As a former 2N, I love disads, but I'm going to be skeptical of your ability to win the disad if your uniqueness and link work isn't done well throughout the entire debate. Impact calc is your best friend, in the 2nr I want you to write my ballot for me and tell me why your link chain is much more probable than your opponents and why your impact turns the case debate.

2. CPs

I'm not particularly persuaded by Aff claims that the CP should be textually competitive, and err on the side of functionally competitive. If the CP has multiple planks I want a clear explanation of how each one functions (or how they function together) at some point in the debate, so many debaters don't synthesis their CP planks to work together which ultimately ends up hurting them in the debate. As far as 50 states goes, the Aff is 100 % right! 50 state fiat isn't the most real world model of education, however, as a 2N I can definitely be persuaded by the arg that it's important to test federal vs. state action---just make sure that these arguments are well drawn out if the debate comes down to 50 states fiat.

3. K debate

All too often the alt isn't clearly explained. While I would definitely vote on "we prove the aff is bad even without the alt," you'd really have to be winning case turns arguments which ultimately makes more work for you. It's best to work with an alt that you are familiar with and can clearly explain with well-articulated links to the case. I try to interfere with the debate as little as possible, so even if I understand the literature base you're working with, I'm not going to do the work for you if you don't fully explain your arguments or develop them.

4. Topicality

It's really important that you win your interpretation though explaining why it is comparatively better than the Aff's CI. It's a good practice to include a list of topical versions of the affirmative that the aff could easily have adopted. Also, I want to see good impact work done in the 2NR (what ground you lost, how they over or under limit etc & why those things matter).

5. FW

Win the TVA debate and I'm 89% convinced you'll win my ballot. If there is a TVA that solves all your offense and gives the Aff the ability to debate the things that they want to debate, that's an easy neg ballot. BUT you need to do the work for me and do impact work in the 2NR that explains what ground you lost (and it needs to be more than "I couldn't run my econ da").

6. Final Tips

A) Clarity over speed

B) When the debate is too big in the 2NR, the neg often loses

C) If the Aff reads add-ons in the 2AC, impact turn them and make the debate fun :)

D) 1NRs should be offensive not defensive, it's a strategic time to read lots of cards because the aff usually focuses more on the 2NC.

For the Aff:

1. For Policy Affs

A) Be topical, or be really good at debating topicality--I'm going to err neg in a debate that you're not winning the topicality debate. Persuasive counter interpretations are a good thing to have in your toolbox and explaining why your interpretation is comparatively better (for debate, for this round etc.) is a must.

B) Impact calc---write my ballot in the 2AR

2. For K Affs

I think that it is helpful for K aff's to be germane to the resolution, it makes it harder for the neg to win aspects of the FW debate (if it is a K vs policy debate) and increases the nuance level of the debate.

A few final things

1. Pronouns are very important, please be respectful and ask the other team their preferred pronouns before the debate starts and adhere to those throughout the debate.

2. Microaggression and rudeness will result in your speaker points being docked, please keep the debate civil and respectful.

Add me to the email chain: apyorko@gmail.com

High School: Wooster High School // College: Trinity University // Coach: MBA 2017-2022

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

Topicality vs Plans

I find well-executed T debates some of the most fun debates to judge. However, that requires a few things from the neg: a definition grounded in the resolutional wording and context; a clear explanation why your vision of the topic either shifts the state of current debating on the topic to a better place or prevents debate from slipping into a worse place; cards on the offensive portions of the debate. I would also caution neg teams stop making contradictory arguments on other theory portions (think: condo).

As for the aff in these debates—I’m open to whatever offense you want to go for, but you must do impact calculus.

Topicality vs Planless

I lean heavily neg in these debates. When I do vote neg, it is because the aff has not adequately described a link between their impacts, their solvency mechanism, and the ballot. Exclusion impacts need a solution that rests within your model of debate, and that is something you need to prove just as the neg needs to explain why the ballot remedies a loss of fairness or clash.

Neg teams: go for fairness. Skills, clash (alone), and education are more hassle than they’re worth.

CPs

I lean neg on broader theory questions. I don’t think many if any debaters understand functional/textual competition. Permutations are bad for the neg when you’re debating a team that writes them well, but I think that clarity in how the CP operates and what actions it specifically takes is necessary to explaining away perms. I find neg teams are short on explaining what the CP does. I like process CPs, but again, be smart on perms. I am not a fan of fiating in a DA.

DAs

If you’re taking a DA in the 1NR and have all that prep time, please use it to read through the 1AC and find solid, supported turns case arguments. If you do, your life and mine become much easier at the end of the debate.

Kritiks

Neg teams need to have a theory of how the world operates and defend it, use it to extrapolate links, etc. I find that when neg teams are asked a question of, “how do you know [the link] is true?” they usually stare blankly into the distance. I like kritik debates, but find myself being frustrated by a lack of link analysis and application to the aff. I am close to 50/50 on the framework portion of K neg vs aff, but I need good impact analysis as to why I should include more than the plan itself. Link debating for the K should operate more than to get you from aff-to-big impact, it should become solvency answers, reasons to reject the team, case turns, etc.

Aff teams need to defend the truths of the plan. Win framework, win the aff is a good and necessary action. Make sure to answer well-done link debate or you risk losing to small concessions that take out the truths you attempt to defend. I don’t think teams impact turn K’s enough (both thesis level impact turns as well as alternative/method turns). If you win the aff, I will look at you favorably.

4 years of policy debate at MBA in Nashville, TN; Class of 2016

Current Junior at Vanderbilt University studying Political Science and Medicine, Health and Society

keeping old paradigm at the bottom b/c why not

add andrew.zhu@vanderbilt.edu please

Here's what's important:

I will communicate with you with head nods, eye contact, etc if I like what you're doing or not so pay attention during round

Evidence quality - especially for DAs and terrible counterplans

- I will assign 0 risk of a DA etc if evidence is bad, but team HAS TO SAY IT

- if you compare evidence I will like you

Debate is a speaking activity

- look me in the eye

- Speak clearly

- don't you dare double breathe

- have good posture, don't slouch

- be nice to teammate and opponent or else...

kritiks

- most of the time people have no idea what they're saying, if you do, you better explain it to me if you want to win

- focus on the links... please

- i'm not your judge for high theory because I hate it

k affs

- you probably can read a plan text and be topical....... do I need to say more? Topical version of aff is a winner for me if explained well

theory

- i'll absolutely vote on condo bad - I went for the argument a lot senior year, that being said I expect you to know what you're saying

- Impact work is extremely important

- you NEED a counterinterpretation for any good theory argument, if you use it and explain how your c/I takes care of their offense or at least mitigates it, you've gone a long way

immigration topic

- I know nothing about this topic so be clear with acronyms, stuff

- my parents are immigrants and I was born in the usa

- I dated internationally and know how hard it is to come here

/////////////////////////////////////////

old stuff

1. Is there prep for flashing?????!?!?!?

No, no there is not. I debated during paperless. And if there are problems, I understand. Please just don't abuse the time or take too long, because the tournament has to keep going.

2. Tagteam cross ex??

Of course.

3. Do you have any prefs!?!?!?!

Uhm.... yes...

If you read this philosophy, you will be rewarded in front of me. If you do things I do not like, then you will lose points in front of me.

Topic Disclaimer:

I have been out of debate for 2 years, and I do not know anything about the Education topic. Please, explain what your acronyms mean and help me out with complex education law. The more you help me out the more speaks you get.

Judging Profile:

I will start your speaks at an average of 29.0. This is higher than most judges? Why? Because I think people should be rewarded for what I consider to be good debate. This also means that I will take points away more liberally.

What I like:

Being nice!

• Did you know that helping your partner when they need it, being nice and greeting people around you, giving paper to your opponents when they don't have any (YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE HOW MANY KIDS DO THIS) is not only nice in terms of etiquette but also goes a long way to being a good human being? Be one.

Good posture and speaking clarity

• Debate is supposed to be persuasive. I want people to set good examples of what debate can look like. If you read any comments section of a debate video on youtube, policy debate looks like a joke. Don't make debate a joke.
• How?
  • Stand up straight.
  • Make eye contact.
  • Speak up.
  • Work on your voice tone (avoid too nasally, whiny, too much bass, graty, too loud etc.). You should ideally be a pleasure to listen to argumentatively and aesthetically. If you have a voice problem, let me know before the round.

Thus, things that will lose you points:

Essentially, the opposite of a lot of the things I mentioned.

• DOUBLE BREATHING - this is a plague, and I would like it to stop. You can get the same amount of air required if you single breathe. Please look up breathing tutorials on youtube to fix this. If you usually double breathe, and you tell me before the round that you will try to work on it but are not perfect, then you get a pass. Triple breathing is insta 28 or less.
• The debate "hunch over with timer or mouse held between my two hands as I move it vigorously back and forth as I gasp for air."
• Being a jerk. There's a difference between being assertive and being mean. I know; there were people on my team that crossed the line. You'll probably get a 26, and you can say goodbye to speaker awards.
  • If you are racist or sexist in any intentional way, I will make sure your coach knows and you know.

Kritiks:

I have lots of experience with "normal" ks, capitalism, neolib, colonialism, etc.

When you get to high theory (Bathai, Deloser, etc.), the best way to win in front of me is to not read it! If you have to read it, then be self-aware enough that your stuff is bulls****. If you communicate this self-awareness to me then I will actually give you a shot.

I debated always a policy aff, but I definitely will vote on kritiks and critical arguments.

I really like alt explanation. What does the world of the alt look like? Do the aff's impacts get solved? Is it a movement or in round? Why does that matter? That's the most important part of the kritik for me.

This tells you how to beat the K too. Weigh your aff vs. the alt. Tell me what advantages you have that the alt can't possibly solve or solve fast enough for your timeframe. This is always the k's weakest part, but if it is strong it usually gives the neg a big advantage in my book.

The framework is important, and I have won my fair share of round on epistemology comes first or kappeler 95 meaning that alt doesn't even matter, but please please focus on the alt.

Also - more links! Specific links are ALWAYS good.

K affs:

Also, I like plans. Newsflash, no one outside of debate really cares about what goes on inside a debate. Realize that your "influence over the debate community" is a very small amount over an extremely small, insulated group of people. I am very persuaded by arguments saying that other forums are much more effective for spreading news about something. I've participated in a partial BLM march and the Womens' March. If you care, do something in real life. Debate is not real life. Debate can be your home, and that's great. But so can your local political party, if you want public speaking. So can your counselor's office, if you need someone to listen to. The only thing unique about debate is that you get to "win" something. Life isn't about winning; it's about doing good in the world. Do good the right way, and don't let anyone or yourself delude you into thinking that you couldn't do it better somewhere else.

- That said, if you are so woke and so persuasive that I cannot help but vote for you, then you probably get 30s and win.

- Otherwise, I WILL vote for K affs, I just want to let you know that smart framework debaters will probably win. If you can crush FW as the aff in front of me, then you deserve the win.

Theory:

#1, slow down on theory and you will win more rounds. Slowing it down shows the judge that you're not afraid of the other team hearing your arguments and believe it or not also lets me write them down.

As a senior, I went for Condo bad 25-50% of my aff rounds. This means I am more likely to vote for condo if you do it well, but if you do it badly then you don't stand a chance.

In general, if you provide solid counter interpretation debate on condo, that's where your starting point should be. If you read a 3 second "condo is bad strat skew time skew impact is education" blurb in the 2AC, you will lose speaker points because you are wasting my time. Neg, if you are in front of me ,and they do this, and you say "THEIR CONDO BAD ARG SUCKS," that's insta 29.5. But if they do it right and you mess up, don't blame me when your speaks drop.

If you want to go for other theory arguments, I will be much more likely persuaded if you give a counter interpretation. IE, if you say 50-state fiat bad, then your c/i could be Neg gets only federal ground with regards to government action. That's not a perfect c/i, but if you can stand your ground, defend it, and the opponent doesn't give one, your point of reference will be the only place to debate from and you're more likely to win in front of me.

General tech:

Don't give me the "they didn't touch this in the X speech give them 0 arguments ever and for ever against this!" I will allow "new" args as long as they are in the spirit of what has already been said. Obviously, there is a limit, and don't abuse this or I won't consider an arg at all.

Death good and extinction good are nonstarters. Don't go there. That includes racism good, genocide good....

Saying "you guys" is not a reason to vote down a team. If they apologize, leave it alone.

Evidence! Some judges almost don't care to read your evidence at all. If one of your opponent's cards doesn't say something, or is contradictory, FLAG IT! Say - LOOK AT BROWN 15, IT CONTRADICTS...... I will vote down entire disads purely based off of evidence.** I lost too many debates on stupid links that literally say nothing and are just tagged to say something. That said, you have to call it out. I will still read ev, but I won't weigh it as high as if the debater points out a flaw.