Experience: 

Policy Coach @ Ralston High School

3 years policy debate @ Millard West High School (2007-2010)

State Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

Nebraska North District Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

General: Debate the arguments that you enjoy and debate them well. Speed & tag-team cross-ex are fine.

Argument Preferences:

Affirmative: Engage with the topic. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to be "topical."

Disads: Run good internal links and be able to explain them.

Kritiks: Don't link to your own discourse links, I'm willing to vote you down on perf-con. Author experience with Heidegger, Foucault, Baudrillard, Camus. Links of omission are rarely good. 

T/FW: High threshold for developing procedural arguments. I really like them, and happy to vote on them, but both teams need to put in the time to address the nuances of the argument. Won't vote on undeveloped Role-of-the-ballot arguments.

Chris Birzer

Add me to the email chain: chrisbirzer [at] gmail [dot] com

Gonzaga 2018 Update:

This will be the first college debate tournament that I judge. I have zero idea what is happening on this topic but I did debate on the war powers topic 5 years ago. You should still assume that I know nothing, and that my flowing and debate judging skills are not at their peak.

I will work to resolve the arguments made in the debate in the most objective and impartial manner possible. I believe I am significantly more ideologically open than I was when I stopped debating a few years ago, and I am excited to listen to all strains of arguments. Still, you should know that I am more practiced in "policy" arguments than critical arguments.

I believe that theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument. I have an almost overwhelming inclination that conditionality is good in all instances, regardless of quantity.

School Affiliation: No Current Affiliation
College: UMKC/KCKCC/UW-Oshkosh (Outrounds/speaker awards at most regional tournaments and doubles of CEDA)
Experience: 15 years in the activity: 3 years high school; 4 years college; 7 years coaching (KC Central, Olathe North, Neenah, Blue Valley West, Jefferson City, and Marquette University High School (DOD))
Rounds Judged on Topic: 15

Updated 10/5/2020

Add me to the email chain for the round: ctcb57@gmail.com


I'll preface everything by indicating that I'm from the "do what you want" camp. However, since the community wants us to have some guidelines to our philosophy, here they are:

T – I think it’s pretty important, especially on topics where the resolution has words that aren’t very static with their definition. I tend to give a little more weight to education arguments than fairness arguments, unless there is a good limits argument made in the debate. I very much believe that T debates need to be framed to say what arguments are/aren't allowed under each team's interpretation and why that is good/bad. I also think that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate T. I'm somewhat sympathetic to a variety of T arguments on this topic, so don't be afraid to go for it in the 2NR if you feel that you're ahead on it.

Theory – I'm usually more sympathetic to aff teams on conditionality in the instance that the neg reads 3 or more conditional advocacies. I also believe that certain CP's are abusive (word PICs, consult, conditions), but I'm willing to listen to them. More recently, I've found myself to be more receptive to States CP theory, particularly when the CP has additional planks which accompany the States acting simultaneously. Another argument that I've become more receptive to has been floating PIKs bad, particularly because of the amount of abuse that occurs late in the debates. However, on most other issues I tend to err neg for the sake of having debates about substantive issues. I tend to prefer functional competition over textual competition. Lastly, I usually err to reject the argument, not the team unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise.

K’s – I'm pretty comfortable with the K and usually judge a lot of "clash of civilization" debates. While I'm not completely immersed in all K authors (namely Baudrillard and Deleuze), I'm still familiar enough to adequately evaluate the round. If the alternative doesn't solve itself, I often find myself voting aff. I, like many others, believe that the neg gets the right to the K. Also, I don't necessarily enjoy listening to framework debates against K aff's. I would much rather prefer that you engage their advocacy/argument. However, if there lacks a stable advocacy in the 1AC and the neg cannot get any links off of it, I'm much more inclined to listen to framework. Most recently, I've found myself being substantially more receptive to Framework when there is either a.) Bad ground for the neg provided the aff b.) An advocacy which doesn't not affirm in the direction of the resolution and c.) The aff can be read on the negative i.e. switch side solves. If you are reading a K aff with an advocacy, the best way to be ahead in Framework debates is to really contextualize what your advocacy does and what the ballot symbolizes/does because these are the only way I believe you can get solidified internal links to the offense you'll use against Framework. Honestly, if I can't succinctly explain what the aff does at the end of the debate, it's probably a good sign I won't vote for you. Also, topical version of the aff is a really compelling argument for me. At the end of these debates, the team that is winning the framing of the debate is usually the one that wins the round. Another thing to note is that in K vs. K rounds, I usually find myself voting for the team that wins the direction of the internal links. If that is the locus of your strategy in these debates, you're doing something right.

Performance - I think that you need to have some form of an advocacy that at least affirms the direction of the topic. I still have yet to see many of these debates, so I'm not quite sure how I would evaluate the performance aspect of it, unless it is accompanied by some decent justifications in the 1AC/1NC.

CP’s –All of the theory questions are above. I tend to err neg on the question of CP solvency in the world that the aff doesn't have a DA to the CP or solvency deficit. Also, in the world of the neg PIC'ing out of a portion of the plan, you must have some form of a solvency deficit or I will probably give full weight to the net benefit. Further, I believe that a CP should have a solvency advocate so that we can prevent some of these ridiculous CP text/no evidence arguments. I would say that I prefer these debates more than K debates.

DA’s – Once again, I enjoy these debate more than K debates. On politics, I also tend to give a bit more weight to impact defense than some judges and will not vote because "risk of a link" was uttered by the neg. You usually need to have a fairly convincing link story to easily win these debates. However, when combined with an effective CP or case defense, both of those issues become less important. I am also a huge fan of overviews that explain how the DA turns the case, or creates a solvency deficit for the aff.

Online debate - Please make sure your microphones and headsets are working properly and that you have your video camera on. Often times I have found myself being unable to hear someone because they're either too close to their mic and it's muffled or they have a really bad connection. I will yell clear once, but afterwards I will just try my best to flow you. Also, ensure you're recording this speech elsewhere while you're giving it because I've run into several issues when the debater's computer freezes or NSDA Campus decides to be unfriendly to us. I will keep track of prep time on my own, so please be sure to not abuse this.

Closing notes – This philosophy is just a basic guideline to my thought process in evaluating debates. In reality, you can run whatever you want, as long as you have a defense of it. The main question I try to answer at the end of these debates is "who does the most good?". If you're on the right side of that argument, you're probably going to win the round. Also important to note, this activity is supposed to be academic and professional. This means that you should not be rude to each other. When people do that, it honestly makes the judge feel awkward and very likely to vote against you. For overviews, make them mean something i.e. explain the implications of the argument and then in the rebuttles use it to isolate very important arguments that you happen to be winning. To close, make sure that you have fun in the round, which means have some jokes and lighten up the mood in the room.

I debated policy for 4 years at Millard North High School and spent some time on the national circuit. I used to somewhat help Millard North's policy team and judge occasionally on the Nebraska circuit.

In high school, I mainly debated K's (fkj and puar). That being said, I understand the basic idea of a round where there is a policy round and 7 off I just probably shouldn't be your top pick if this is your bread and butter.

When it comes to judging I want to see a round where people do what they do best. I may need some extra explanation when it comes to in-depth theory debates but that doesn't mean I won't vote for it.

Debated at Missouri State and graduated in 2004

Executive Director of DEBATE-Kansas City until 2017

Assistant Coach and then Head Coach at Barstow starting in 2018

Online update - I have done little online judging, so I don't know how it may alter my ability to understand top-end speed. Based on the other judges, it seems going a touch slower and focusing on clarity helps judges get more on the flow.

Yes, I want to be on the chain, and please be as efficient as possible with the emailing. Email: gabe.cook@barstowschool.org.

I am open to almost any argument, but I defer policy. I like a compelling narrative, especially in the link debate. I value both technical skills and argumentative truth. Clarity and flowability will increase speaker points and chances of winning.

T - I defer to reasonability on T and I do not mind larger topics. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote on T if you win the argument. Limits can be the cleanest standard for the neg to win but I also find ground loss important to provide context. I want both sides to explain the model of debate your interp creates and impact why it’s comparatively better.

K-AFF/Framework - I am fine with kritik affs, but I will also vote neg on framework. TVAs can be persuasive for the neg, and both sides should focus on what their model means for debate. I believe k affs need a topic link and a clear method for the negative engage. I lean towards believing you do not get a perm in a method vs. method debate.

Case - Here is where I copy and paste from every judge paradigm and say I want more case debate. I dislike AFFs with lousy internal links, and I will reward NEGs that take the time to point out flaws in AFF ev.

K - You need a specific link, and I appreciate it when debaters use lines from the 1AC to get a link. I am open to voting on presumption/turns case. But you need to explain how the K actually eliminates solvency and/or turns the case, and contextual examples help.

By default, I evaluate ontology, epistemology, discourse, and AFF consequences through the lens of link and impact rather than as something resolved or excluded by debate theory.

NEG FLEX - I generally believe the negative should have the flexibility to run a K and disads as long as they don't try to create and go for double turns.

DA - The starting place is to be on the right side uniqueness. Then I need a compelling link story contextualized to the AFF. Impact comparison is obviously essential. I will vote on effective AFF criticism and/or takeouts of low probability disads.

When I debated I went for politics often, and I still cut a lot of politics cards. For me, uniqueness research determines the viability of any politics DA. I don’t like forcing a story because of the links or impacts. I appreciate nuanced and clever link stories, and I will reward NEG teams that have a compelling link story.

CP - I like core of the topic CPs and smart PICs. I dislike process CPs with little topic literature that compete only at a textual level. I also dislike consultation CPs. This doesn't mean I refuse to vote for them, but that I am receptive to theoretical objections and solvency arguments.

Condo/Advocacy Theory - I believe the fairest standard is to give the NEG one conditional CP and one conditional K. Or I think you can have unlimited dispositional advocacies. The more advocacies the neg runs, the more grounds the aff has for a condo argument.

Points

29.6 – 30 – Approaching perfection to perfect.

29.1-29.5 – Excellent

28.5 – 29 – Above average to very good.

28.4 – Average

28.3– 27.7 – Slightly below average to below average

27.6 – 27 – Below average to well below average.

26.9 and below – Bad to potentially offensive.

they/them pronouns.

First year policy coach at Millard South, fourth year in debate.

TW/CW's are a must for cases that talk about sexual violence.

If you or your team partakes in/employs individuals that have a history of sexual assault infractions, rape or rape apologism, you will be dropped immediately on principle. No exceptions. Strike me if that's a problem.

Generally a k judge. I don't buy nuclear war/extinction impacts. I will vote for policy affirmatives/disads/counterplans if everything is well articulated and the impacts are extended well. I have no problem with ROB/ROJ arguments, I love performances as long as they aren't used just to win a round. I hate framework and topicality, I think these arguments generally tend to be violent, especially when used against k's.

The only time I'll interject in a round is if something violent/abusive is being said (comments towards other debaters, stealing prep, slurs/exclusive language, etc). I don't care about foul language lol you do you, it isn't my place to police your language. 

Basically just explain your stuff thoroughly. Give me reasons to vote for you. Impacts and links are suuuuUuUuuUuUUper important. Be nice.

- prefer flashing over email chains, I'm fine with tag team cx as long as it isn't against someone who is mav, I'll keep a running clock if my phone isn't dead but it probably is. Will probably need flow paper.

Experience

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

Big things - quickly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small things - rant style

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

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

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

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

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

Random things:

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

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

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

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

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

Questions? Just ask!

Last Updated 3/5/20

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

I use she/her pronouns.

TL;DR:

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

Logistics:

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

Specific Arguments

K affs

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

Framework

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

Ks

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

Topicality

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

Theory

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

CPs

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

DAs

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

Experience-

I have done all debate events, but I have substantially more experience with LD (both traditional and progressive). Four time state qualifier and two time national qualifier, once in Extemp and once in Worlds. While competing in Worlds, my team placed sixth and I placed fourth speaker.

Worlds-

I will judge the round how it should be judged according to Worlds norms and standards. Don’t try to be too limiting with framing, definitions or models. I will not evaluate the round using any other influences (LD, CX, PF). Ideal speed would be about conversational, and spreading will result in a a reduction of speaker points, speaking quickly to cover everything may not. I love POIs when done tastefully. Don’t stand up constantly with the sole purpose of distracting your opponent, but everybody needs to be asking them (not just the same team members). I also think that using POIs as more than just questions is a phenomenal strategy (20% of your overall rank).

LD-

Framework-

I prefer to have a framework to weigh the round with. Some sort of weighing mechanism makes the round more clear. I tend to evaluate different impacts though that weighing mechanism presented and won.

Arguments-

I need warrants and impacts. I will vote on most anything not obviously offensive (racism, sexism, homophobia ect.). While I have some familiarity with K's, it is not anything close to being extensive. If you decide to run one, you will probably have to give me more analysis and slow down more for claims and warrants (adding me to an email chain or flashing it won't hurt). I also require clash.

PF-

A framework is preferred, but not necessary. There needs to be clash and the other team's case must be addressed. My least favorite debates are those that heavily center on only one case because that usually results in a purely defense/offense debate.

Speaking-

I would rank myself as about a 7 as far as speed goes. Answers to questions-

I don't care where you sit

I don't care if you time on your phone

I don't need to see if your laptop/phone is on airplane mode

I don't care if you sit or stand for cross ex

Experience

I debated Policy for two years at Millard South.

I mostly judge Policy with increasing amounts of LD.

I am an assistant Policy coach for Millard South.

General

Pronouns: He/ Him or They/Them

Email Chain - dannypolicydebate@gmail.com

I'm open to listen and to vote for almost any argument as long as it is argued well. I also need to be told why your argument matters if it's not a traditional policy arguments. I'm fine with arguments that talk about large impacts or those that effect our debate community, but again i have to be told why it matters. Clash is very important because it means both teams are thinking critically and it makes my job easier when it comes time to vote. I will not time speeches or prep time, mostly because I forget to start the timer and then look like a fool. Also don't be afraid to ask questions either before or after round. I probably will not catch your authors names so saying extend XYZ '15 card doesn't tell me much. Extend your cards but give me a brief analysis so I can flow it correctly.

LD

Speed

Coming from Policy i'm fine with speed but make sure you are clear else risk having arguments be dropped if I cant understand what is being said.

Value / Criterion

This is the toughest part for me judging LD as it's not something I thought about in Policy. I need to be told why your value or criterion is better or why your opponents is worse, just re-reading what your criterion is won't help anyone. If you can argue that your contentions can fit with your opponents criterion even better.

Policy

Contention / Impact

I'll definitely look at impact analysis as the heaviest factor when deciding on how to vote, I want probability, magnitude, and time frame. I also want a clear story on how we get from the resolution to your impacts with well defined internal links.

Theory

Theory arguments can be fun but they have to be specific to what is occurring in round. If i just hear a rehashing of the blocks and not an explanation of what happened in the round and why it matters im not likely to vote on it.

Specific Arguments

I think PIC's can be fun and creative. I enjoy kritiks but you better do a good job explaining how the alt functions. If it's a "high theory" argument there better be a lot of work done, don't expect me to be an expert on your author. Even though I am open to most arguments if you read "genocide good" , "oppression not real" et cetera I might vote you down then and there.

Closing thoughts

Debate for me were some of the best times I had and it should be for you too. Have fun, learn something new, and be respectful.

Katie Ford--4 years of high school debate at Fremont Senior High School, Nebraska. 2.5 years of collective college debate experience between KCKCC and Emporia State University. Double-octafinalist at CEDA Nationals 2014 and 9th speaker at the CEDA Nationals 2014 tournament. Multiple time tournament champion and outround qualifier. Former assistant coach for Westside High School in Omaha, NE and former assistant coach for Lincoln East High School, Lincoln, NE

My paradigm is not what I require of debaters when I'm judging them, but mere suggestions that I think can improve the quality of debate. If I am judging you, your best bet is to go for whatever arguments you're comfortable with, I'd rather see you debate well with what you know well, than struggle to cater to what you think I want to hear. Regardless of my preferences or the arguments I used to read in debates, I will still vote for whatever argument wins the round. Debate is what you make it and I'll evaluate it how you tell me to.

My speaker points are generally as follows:

26s & Below: These are reserved for debaters who have said atrocious or harmful things in the debate round. The lower speaker points you receive will depend on how much I think you are harmful for this activity. If you actively harass, assault, or make anyone in the room feel unsafe, I will likely give you a 0.

27-28.5s: These speaker points are for average speeches that perhaps were poorly constructed or were just not well explained in the round.

28.6s-29.3s: These speaker points are for debaters who are well versed in their arguments, and are able to win flows and make smart decisions in their answers, links, etc.

29.4s-29.7s: These speaker points are given to debaters who have all-but owned the debate, there isn't much more I could ask out of them in the round, perhaps a few small things here and there that were not a big deal. Smart choices, persuasive speeches, and confidence in your arguments and advocacies.

29.8s-30s: You owned the debate round.

Aff Things:

I don't care if you are going to read a plan text or not, either way, you need to have a well-explained story for how your method/plan/advocacy/etc. solves the impacts that you claim it does, whether it be through a plan text, ROB, advocacy statement, or just a well-constructed 1AC. I think affirmatives have seriously started slipping when it comes to internal links.

I would rather listen to a couple of really good pieces of evidence than 37 cards that you can divide up into four sections of arguments that all say the same thing. Quality over quantity, this is still a communication activity.

Whatever you like to do, is what I'd like to see you debate about. Be affirmative.

Neg Things:

Find good links, even if they're analytical. Make presumption arguments; I feel like teams forget that the status quo is negative ground.

If you're reading K's, I'm down. But please don't assume I know exactly what your entire K said, how it solves, etc. just because you said a particular author that I am in general familiar with. You are still held to the responsiblity of explaning your advcocacy and solvency, just like the affirmative is. Also, don't just keep repeating the same words that your author uses without contextualizing your arguments to the affirmative teams' or the debate in general.

Framework/Topicality: If you're going to go for Topicality, do it smartly. Don't read really generic, old, boring, and bad T shells. Make nuanced arguments that makes the affirmtiave defend why their argument is productive educationally for debate.

If you are going to go for framework, I'd rather you didn't read it in the generic, unproductive way that everyone tends to. Introduce policy education into the debate in some way and provide the education you felt was lacking from the affirmative team.

DA's: Make them actually link. If you're going to go for a DA just as a way to prove the aff is untopical via a no link argument they'll likely make, please don't spend half your time on it and then kick it in the block or 2NR. I don't want to waste that much ink.

"Non-Traditional" Negatives: Explain what your advocacy is, contextualize it to the aff, have links.

Other Things:

Don't steal prep time, it's obvious, and also annoying.

Don't purposefully take forever to exchange files if flashing or emailing... it's also obvious and also annoying.

I don't take prep for flashing/emailing/whatever

I will likely keep track of prep time/speech times

Don't cut cards and don't lie about what cards you read

Have fun

Long Story short:

Argumentation: Make sure that you provide warranted analysis and explanation in extensions beyond taglines and author names.

Real world impacts are important, this applies equally to K and "policy" debaters. Keep that in mind when framing impacts and solvency.

Impact weighing and clear solvency mechanisms are a good way to my ballot.

Speed: I am down with speed, just make sure that you are clear and articulate.

K/K-affs: Go for it.

Basically run what you want to, as long as you can clearly weigh warranted arguments over your opponents. If you have any other/specific questions, just ask.

Debated policy at Millard North High School, currently in my second year out.

I like to weigh debates on a more big-picture level. Honestly i am not the best at handling rapid-fire tech speeches. I'm competent enough with it, though. I won't important things if they are handled accordingly. I'm just not an ideal judge for the style.

I don't really feel one way or the other about perf con good or bad, disclosure theory, or most types of framework.

I am not a fan of framework that doesn't provide any suggestion of an alternative model of debate rounds that reaches out to the aff in some way (i.e. T version of the aff to at least show that you're trying to do something productive).

I know more about identity-politic Ks than i do about high-theory Ks.

I can keep up with speed and 0.5 extra speaker points if it's relatively clear too.

Don't worry about making eye contact with me during your speeches/crossex. It makes me feel kinda awkward.

This is pretty much copied from Luke Cumbee's philosophy, my high school coach

Quick things

I love to learn new things
If you have any specific questions--feel free to ask
No prep for flashing
Include me in the e-mail chain/flash drive exchange
Tag team CX is acceptable, but it doesn't score you any points
In your last speech—go for arguments and never go for everything
Clash matters -- do not run away from your opponent's arguments
Student safety (mental and physical) comes first

Experience

Debated policy 4 years in high school. I have a fair amount of experience in both circuit and traditional circles.

Good Debate

Every time I update this it always seems to be me finding a new way to say this: "Do what you do best--and justify what you do." Generally speaking--this means making offensive arguments, supported by multiple warrants, effectively applied to the round--no matter your argument preference.

Theory (+Topicality)

Higher threashold for theory than many--it generally requires a legitimate claim. I’ve voted on it before but it has to be developed and it has to dive deep into the standards. I generally default to competing interpretations unless convinced otherwise. Have offense against their interpretation and use the standards to prove substance to your theoretical objection. If you go for theory in any sense of the word, tell me whether it’s a reason to reject the team or argument and provide offense for that.

Also: 10 second theory shells deserve 10 second responses. Even if they are conceded--I would still probably default to reject the arg. If you want me to make your theory argument enough weight to make me ignore everything else in the debate and vote for you, then give it the time it deserves.

On conditionality: 1 is fine--2 is probably fine--3 is debateable--4 will be a fun/unique debate but probably not fine

Disadvantages

Link story is usually the largest uphill battle, so you should probably have more than one link
Specific links are good links
Disad turns case is important
Risk of uniqueness is a thing
Link turns need uniqueness to be offense

Counterplans

Not sure what else to say--CP's are strategic and should be used often. Ones that are specific to the aff are especially fun.

Kritiks + Performance + Clash of Civs + The only section you'll probably read

Although everything is up for debate... I do have a strong belief in addressing the topic. Negative is required to address the affirmative... affirmative is required to address the topic.

I'm not sure why it's my place to tell you what you should and should not argue. I've had students who preferred to argue policy arguments and I have had students who preferred to argue performance (and everything in-between). As a coach, I could not imagine not having them on my team--nor could I imagine discouraging the passion they had in their arguments. I am a strong believer in this community; therefore, I am also a believer that we should not exlude entire types of arguments, nor any debater, nor any lifestyle, etc.

What that does not resolve, however, is how I evaluate these debates. A couple of thoughts on that... Good debate trumps my preferences. Justify what you do/why you win. Smart arguments are good arguments. Clash is always a priority. Offensive arguments--well warranted--applied to the debate's nexus question.

This was intentionally vague: if you have a specific question feel free to ask.

Framework

FYI: these are stressful to judge--I generally default to offense/defense and vote for the team that did the best debating. Any shift from this framework usually requires a team who is doing the best debating anyway.

The direction I am moving is in favor of education. The last thing I want to do is have a student feel like they can't present their best strategy in front of me--I want to see you at your best. That being said--I do enjoy issue oriented debates more than Framework debates. I also have a general thought that it can be tough to do Framework debates well. I will also say that if you want to go the Framework route, you really need to develop the arguments well (simply saying the word education is not convincing)

Contact info: jmsle20@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflicts: Jenks High School

Experience: I debated for four years at Jenks High School in Oklahoma (2013-2017). I traveled out-of-state and went to state three of those four years. I ran heavy K stuff my sophomore year. A mixture of K and Policy my junior year and mainly policy stuff my senior year.

Education topic: I have judged very few debates on this topic. Do not expect me to know your acronyms or the “obvious” links.

Prep stops when the flash leaves the computer/email is sent/pocketbox uploaded.

Speed: I debated fast against fast people. That being said I don’t judge often and it’s been a while since I debated. So slow down at the beginning to let me get used to your voice. Trust that I am doing my best to flow, but I am not perfect. I will yell clear twice for each team if I feel like you are being unclear or too fast for me. Otherwise you shouldn’t be surprised if I can’t get your arguments on the flow.

General: Do what you do best because most of the times you will be worse if you do otherwise. I try to be as unbiased as possible, but I am imperfect. Don’t make me do work you should be doing. Don’t be hostile. It annoys me and drives people away from the activity I love. As far as post-rounds, I post-rounded too hard after my rounds so I am probably hypocritical on this, but I ask you be civil. I respect the schedule because I have been in tabrooms before and so that will be the primary reason for me to end a post-round. I do believe the judge should be able to confidently defend their decision. I may withhold some things for the sake of time. I’ll try to put them on the ballot. Feel free to ask me about them.

Evidence: I won’t call for much and will only do so if it is disputed or if no one explains it well.

Also do not clip. I love passive-aggressive questions like “do you mind sending me the highlighted version of your evidence?” If I am very confident you are clipping I will vote against you and tank your speaker points. I do this because the activity already suffers from poor representations of evidence and clipping is one of the worst forms of that. I will listen to recordings for proof.

DA/CP: Have good links. Get technical and explain evidence.

Case debates: Spend more time on them and make them good.

FW: I’ve been on both sides of this issue. They tend to get repetitive so try to not make them so. I like generic theoretical arguments as well as state pedagogy ones.

Theory: You need to impact these arguments out for these to be convincing. Be technical and list examples. I usually agree with “reject the argument and not the team,” but feel free to convince me otherwise. 

Random note: Disclosing makes debates better so please do it or have a really good reason not to.

Cross-X: Utilize this effectively. Don’t make me feel like you are struggling to make up questions. Have some planned out. Follow lines of questioning to make a point. Don’t be a bully. I will know when the person being cross X’d is losing a point and you don’t need to keep rubbing it in.

Topicality: Most of theory applies here. I don’t think you need to win in round abuse if you win competing interpretations. Being unfamiliar with this topic means you are going to have to do more work here. I don’t know the cliché T card that people read every round. I personally think definition origins is not debated enough, this effects predictability. 

Kritiks: I read many of these but I only occasionally ventured beyond the 5 or 6 most popular arguments so keep that in mind. Don’t assume I know the literature behind all of your work. Explain the alternative. I personally don’t find the permutation double bind argument convincing (alt should be strong enough to overcome the instance of the aff.) You can make it but don’t plan on this being your round winner. Explain your jargon as you use it. Have good links and explain them. Don’t assume because they have an econ advantage that you don’t have to explain the link to your cap K or your Anti-blackness K. Even if they don’t try to link turn the K, the Links are how you access the impact to your K, so it is still super important to explain them.

If you have any questions or concerns: mlugibihl@ou.edu

2019-2020 season update:

I don't debate in college, so I'm becoming less familiar with super tech-y arguments and the intricacies of the resolution. Generally, I don't think you can ever provide too many warrants/explanation, especially with more complex arguments.

General--

- junior at the University of Missouri - Kansas City

-I debated for three years at Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD, and I qualified to NSDA Nationals in Policy and Congress

-I'm always looking to learn new things

-Don’t be a jerk in round-- I have a very low tolerance for rude behavior, especially when the other team looks uncomfortable

-I’ll call for cards/want to be on email chain

-I have experience with stock issues and k debate and respect both styles

-debate your best-- I don’t want to prevent anyone from doing what they want to do

CPs--

I didn’t run CPs in high school; I'm unfamiliar with the mechanisms, but they're great when well-explained.

T--

I think the general problem with T debates for me is that they get bogged down in standards v standards and other minutia-- if the T debate is fleshed out to where clash can determine the winner and loser, then I'm cool with it

If you’re going for T, GO FOR IT-- 5 minutes in the 2nr, the abuse should be there and nothing else in the round should matter

K--

I ran Ks on aff and neg, mostly fem and psychoanalysis, and I think K debate is interesting

One caveat, I’m not familiar with lots of Ks, meaning you’ll have to explain the story and how it interacts with the affirmative/resolution

Framework--

I feel like the approach to framework should be less “fairness/limits” in their conventional sense and more “let’s make policy in policy debate.”

I default to a “how do I make the debate space better” mindset

DA--

Sell me on the link story-- I have a tendency to think link cards are pretty bad (see evidence quality standard at the top)

Case--

Extensions of warrants are really important-- I definitely do not understand all plan mechanisms after the 1AC

Theory--

In round impacts are important, sell me on why it’s important to vote on them

Slow down and flesh out the argument

Any other things-- just ask, I will answer all questions to the best of my knowledge :)

Iqraz Nanji
School: The Barstow School


I debated for four years at Barstow and now am a fourth-year student at Columbia University. My partner and I made it to the TOC our senior year.

Nearing the end of my debate career, my negative strategies were heavily reliant on ontology critiques and our aff was full on hegemonic propaganda. That being said, I am willing to listen to anything in the spectrum (or outside of it). Here are some argument specifics:

The aff-- Do what you want as long as you can explain it. If you're not reading a run of the mill argument, I will hold you at a higher threshold mostly because I'm not all too aware of the intricacies of this topic.

Topicality -- if you think about it, T debates are--and should be--about limits. I would much rather have the debate be centered on offensive claims about debate pedagogy and how your interpretation accesses it best than the generic reasonability v. competing-interps battle. The debate will inevitably be about competing-interps... so you may need a more strategic lens to frame this argument. This may sound a bit neg biased but look at it through this lens: the limits argument makes your reasonability argument offensive -- use it for your benefit.

Theory -- In most cases I will lean towards rejecting the argument and not the team, though I can be persuaded otherwise. Don't read your generic blocks--be innovative with arguments.

Counter-plans -- CPs are precious resources! If you have a specific CP, it can and will get you far in the debate--mostly because aff teams don't know how to engage them. I've read and gone for a wide set range of PICs, Process CPs, and shoddy internal net benefits, so I am willing to vote on "tricks" as long as they are executed well with warrants and all. BUT don't base your strategy off of cheap shots, for quality of argumentation is preferred.

Disadvantages/Case Turns -- DAs are good. My DA background is heavily politics oriented. Case turns are available for practically any argument--an easy go to when you don't have much to say against the aff.

Critiques -- When it comes to critique literature, I am most familiar with ontology critiques. This includes: Heidegger, Environment/Neolib, Security, Irigaray, and OOO. You can definitely read any K you want... Given that K lit is always lacking somewhere, don't be scared to get innovative! Use K tricks (be upfront), mix-and-match relevant literature (be ethical), spin your arguments into more than they are (be smart). Feel free to be vague, but don't think that you can get away without specifics. Warrants matter and usually yield tactically better debates.

Framework (vs. K) -- Framework debates usually get bogged down in rejection discourse... I usually will not vote to reject critiques from debate. An infinitely better way to engage with this argument is accessing offense through the frame the critique uses. Tell me why your aff is ontologically, epistemologically, or pedagogically (etc.) better than the neg.

Framework (vs. K-aff) -- Teams that read unorthodox affs usually know how to debate their framework arguments better than others. This means that your arguments will have to specifically engage what they say. I'm not going to say much here else here so as to incentivize you to engage this in whatever manner you want.

CX -- Ask specific questions in CX and be a bit aggressive. (Be mean, but don't be an ass.)

I don't have a predisposition in the tech vs. truth debate. What I really enjoy in rounds is witnessing how teams strategize and make decisions in round. So don't go for your best argument; instead, go for the best argument for the situation you are in.

Debate is about taking risks: even if you don't have great evidence or aren'twinning the tech but you feel that you are on the right side of the issue, go for it.

I will call for evidence at the end of the round.

Flashing evidence will be off-prep.
Don't clip cards.
Disclose.
Flow.

If you have any more questions, ask me before the round.

I have been coaching/judging policy debate on and off since I graduated high school in 2009. I was most active in my coaching career from the years of 2010-2016.

I am back now as the assistant debate coach at Harrisburg High School where I primarily deal with LD.

I feel like my primary goal in adjudicating debates is to have to do the least amount of work possible, I.E. I am very lazy. If I have to do the work for you, its probably going to be a decision you don't like.

In terms of an actual "paradigm" or framework for how I evaluate debates, I don't really have one. I'm generally cool with whatever you all want the round to be. However, there are a few things about me to note that might be helpful to you:

-In my older age I've become way more hard of hearing then I thought I would. So please speak up. If you don't, I probably wont have flowed everything you've said

-Speed is cool with me but realistically on scale of 1-10 (10 being the fastest round ever) I'm probably a 6.5-7

-I don't flow author names and dates. So if you're referencing /cross applying evidence cite specific analysis.

-The arguments I feel most comfortable evaluating are procedural args (vagueness, workability, etc) and any of the stock issues. I used to think I was some huge K hack back in the day but I'm not. I just don't really understand the nuances of the argument. However, that's not to say that I am not down for some well done and insightful K debates but keep in mind I'm definitely not as well versed in the lit as you think I might be and your debating should reflect that. Additionally, a super compelling role of the ballot argument is a must. I also really enjoy good disad and CP debates.

-Disads need to have a clear story to them and have a clear impact. It needs to something quantifiable or articulated well enough to be weighed against the affirmative.

-I really really do not like topicality debates. In all the debates on T I've judged none of them have been super compelling nor warranted my time evaluating. Reasonability is the way to go on this flow for me.

-End of the round impact calculus is really important to me. Please do this.

-Theory debates are pretty hit or miss for me. I need to have some sort offense or reason as to what your reading warrants my consideration. arguments like reject the argument not the team I'm pretty sympathetic towards.

-You should write your ballot for me in the rebuttals.

-Do not post round me. I have no problem answering any questions or clarifying anything in my decision but the second you are combative I will walk out of the room.

-Ultimately, debate is a game and you should have fun and learn from it. Don't do anything in the round takes away from either of those things.

Feel free to ask me anything else before the round starts!

LD Supplement:

This is the event that I primarily judge on my local South Dakota circuit. LD debate here is very traditional.

Most of the information I have posted above is probably going to be useful to you in terms of framing my LD ballot. I have no predisposition to how an LD round should go so do whatever, just keep in mind I probably don't understand most of the traditional nuances of the event.

To me, I feel that the criterion should be the framework in which you attain some idea of your value and the way in which I evaluate and weigh you arguments in relation to the other debater.

If I am not told at the end of the round how to frame or evaluate the debate I will default to evaluating the impacts presented in the round and which ones outweigh.

I am absolutely not the judge for Tricks. If this is your strategy going into the round and you do not intend on changing it you will probably lose the round.

PF Supplement:

I competed in public forum my senior year where I primarily debated at my local South Dakota circuit. My first three years I was a policy debater.

Most of what I mentioned in the policy debate section should be helpful to you in this event as well.

I love a good framework debate. Just make sure you utilize that as a way to make me evaluate your args vs your opponent's. Reference it through out the round. Too many times I see teams read framework and then never utilize it ever again

When using evidence, make sure it is clearly cited and read, not paraphrased. Additionally, when opponents ask for evidence you should have it ready to give to them. There is nothing that upsets me more than waiting an excessive amount of time for evidence to be handed over. If I feel like it is getting excessive I will warn you once, after that I will start taking prep/speech time.

Utilize the summary for impact calculus and the final focus for reasons as to why you win the round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXDFaoEZsbc

Justin Stanley - Johnson County Community College

I debated at Missouri State and have been coaching for about 10 years.  I would like you to debate using the arguments that you feel will win you the debate without putting too much stock in my own personal preferences.  I try to eliminate those preferences when judging and evaluate each argument outside of any feelings I have towards particular arguments.  With that being said,

I am a better counterplan/disad/Case judge than kritik judge because I have more experience debating, coaching, and researching these positions.  I certainly understand kritik literature more than I used to, but I am still probably not as well read on these issues as other judges. 

I have a strong preference that the affirmative have a topical plan and defend its passage.  However, I can be persuaded otherwise.  This is an issue in which I try to eliminate my preferences and judge the debate based on what I see in the round. I often find that your defense of why you have chosen to be anti-topical is not as persuasive to me as it is to you.  I haven't ever thought that topicality was genocidal.  If there is a topical version of your affirmative that solves all of your "impact" turns then you are likely in a bad position.  If there is not a topical version of your affirmative then that is likely more of a reason to vote against you then to vote for you.

I don't think conditionality is always the best approach for debate.  This is especially true in rounds in which multiple conditional options are used to try and "Spread out" the IIAC and not necessarily to test the merits of the affirmative.  I have not voted on conditionality bad very often, but I often find that has more to do with the debates then my own personal preferences. 

I think PICs are often very good strategies, but I am not the best judge for obscure word PICs that claim a minute net-beneft.

A few other things...

1) Clarity - go as fast as you would like, but don't underestimate the importance of clarity in my decision.  If I can't understand your argument then I am highly unlikely to vote for it.

2) Strong cross-examination will earn you additional speaker points.  Being humorous and kind will also help you with speaker points.  If you are a team that ranks based on speaker points then I am probably average to slightly below average in the speaker points that I give.  I rarely give a 29+.  Most debaters will fall in the 27 - 28.7 range for me.

3) Paperless debate is a great thing and I am relatively patient with tech problems.  However, at some point my patience runs out and I get frustrated.  Please do your best to eliminate delays between speeches. 

4) One person should not ask and answer all of the cross-examination questions. 

5)  If you want me to call for a card then you should extend author, claim and warrant for the piece of evidence.  Listing 20 authors in a row with no real explanation will likely result in not calling for any cards.

6)  If I catch you clipping cards then you will automatically lose with zero peaker points.  This is true even if the other team did not make a complaint about it.

Last Updated Feb. 2022

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

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

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

THE ONLY PART OF THIS YOU ACTUALLY NEED TO READ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disads/CPs/policy arguments: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include me on email chains - rawme9@gmail.com

My name is Ried and I debated 4 years of NDT/CEDA Debate, 2 at Lindenwood University and 2 at Emporia State University. I have also coached at Lincoln East High School, Lincoln, NE for 3 years. I will keep this brief and try to make clear my biases and assumptions.

At this point in my career, I am not heavily invested in the politics of debate or shaping its future. I am far more interested in how these skills, conversations, and advocacies transfer outside of the debate space. This doesn't inherently exclude any argumentation styles, but it may change how you want to frame them in front of me.

I am most familiar with K lit, in particular my studies focus around narratives, anti-blackness, and colonialism. However, I also did policy debate and understand that fine. I am not shy about telling you that I didn't understand something, so please try to actually explain yourselves. Just because I am familiar with a literature base does not mean that I am familiar with your particular critical vocabulary.

Finally, please ENGAGE with the other team and what they are saying. This can be straight opposition or it can be more nuanced but it needs to happen.

28.5 is an average debater.

eric.wright@barstowschool.org

Please put me on the email chain.

I LIKE THESE THINGS:

Clash. Compare warrants, authors, analytics, everything. Tell me why what you said is more accurate than what they did. I give more weight to clash than quality of evidence.

Healthy competition. Be nice but be better than them at the same time.

Case debate. 7 off case is annoying to flow. Engage with the case as much as you can.

HOW I DECIDE DEBATES:

The flow. My defaults are an offense defense paradigm and utilitarianism, but all you need is one well warranted argument to say why those defaults are bad and it becomes completely up to debate.

Presumption: Very rarely with you win case so completely that there is no tangible benefit to the aff, so unless the aff team forgets to extend a critical part of their case, you should other offensive positions by the end of the round.

CP/DA: Do what you want, include turns case and impact calc early. I've debated this topic, so generics are fine.

Topicality: It's always a voter and never a reverse voter. I understand you just reading your blocks and frontlines in early constructives, but don't just extend standards throughout the debate. Do analysis about where your definitions come from and why that makes it more predictable or better. I don't need a traditional caselist, but if the negative definition stops 3 really abusive affs, list those. Conversely, if the neg definition stops 3 really good affs, the aff should point that out. I have a hard time buying reasonability unless it's specific to the aff, so explain why your aff in particular contains valuable education and is predictable. Winning in round abuse lowers the negative standard for winning competing interpretations.

Theory: I lean aff on process, consult, and state cps, but aff teams still need clash on the theory debate, and it's rarely a valid reason to reject the team. With condo, it depends on how many advocacies the neg runs, how contradictory they are, if they kick an advocacy when it was straight turned, but aff teams shouldn't bet a round on winning condo bad against one advocacy without any abuse. I don't often see a valid remedy to condo bad other than reject the team, but feel free to advance your ideas.

Ks: I haven't run them. I need alt explanation. Don't use too much jargon. I will try to judge as fairly as possible with ROB, Framework, and root cause.

Non-tradition affs: Affs should be topical, but what that means is up to debate.

Ask me questions before the debate if you have any and make sure to put me on the email chain.

I DO NOT LIKE THESE THINGS:

Clipping cards. I'll end the round if i can say beyond a reasonable doubt that you clipped cards. I'll cut your speaks in half too.

Prep stealing. I understand it can take a while to get docs into an email or flashdrive, but after you say stop prep that's all you should be doing. I'll start by asking you to stop, but if it gets too out of hand I start docking your points.

Being rude. You don't have to dislike someone just because you want to beat them in a debate round. Competitive spirit should not define relationships. Also, don't be bigoted (Sexist, racist, ableist, transphobic, queerphobic, etc). Excessive aggressive behaviors will be voted down.

Too much jargon without explanation.