TL:DR - I will probably end up voting for whoever does better impact calc and better explains the material implications of what they're saying + don't go too fast. Also I really really hate tricks

I want comprehensive, understandable overviews in every rebuttal. Explain to me what the material implications of your case are - tell me what it looks like for me post-fiat. Also, I'd prefer in the 2nr you went for one, well developed strategy - I can appreciate bold, strategic decisions.

Speed: Persuasive, understandable communication is key. I probably can't understand you if you're spreading because I never did debate myself and haven't been judging for too long. Ultimately, you do you, but at least slow down for your taglines or I just can't keep up and your speaks will reflect that.

Argument preferences:

I'm always gonna be down for a good DA or CP debate - that's probably what you're going to want to do in front of me if you don't want to lose me.

- K Affs - just at least try to make an effort to sound like your topical. I'm probably not going to vote on "topicality is violent" arguments.

- K - I'm definitely not a good judge to go for any high theory K in front of because I almost definitely haven't read any of the same lit you have. That being said, if you explain the material implications of your K and what the alt looks like for the real world - I'll probably vote for it.

- T - win it and I'll vote for it. If you explain the violation well and impact it out and it seems believable, I'll probably vote for it. That being said, fairness is not an impact - it is an internal link to either structural fairness or procedural fairness.

- Theory - just don't be frivolous please, I'm probably not gonna vote on spikes just b/c they're dropped - seems pretty abusive to me.

Revised: 3/20/14

My first year judging at the NDT I had an important conversation with Dallas Perkins that still impacts my thinking about judging today. I expressed to him a bit of my anxiety about judging and the possibility of ending someone’s career. I’m paraphrasing here, but he said something to the effect of “People should ask two things when determining who the good judges are: 1- Do they try their hardest? 2- Are they willing to vote for the team that won no matter who they are?” Over the years I have found that these characteristics are simple in theory and sometimes difficult in practice. If I have the honor of judging you then I will most assuredly make a mistake somewhere, but I will strive to try my hardest and vote for the team that won no matter who they are.

How do I determine who won?

Rather than prescribing a set of argument preferences, I think it may be more productive to articulate my decision-making process because I think that we are at a moment where my preferences are not as important to me as helping debaters understand how I evaluate debates. Here is how I generally try to decide a debate: 

1- I start by isolating the central questions of the debate: The second the debate is over I write a list of questions that I need to resolve. Sometimes I can do this without actually looking at my flows, but after I write the questions down I go back and check my flows to make sure I am not missing any major controversies. The key part of this stage is forcing myself to determine the issues that are essential to my decision versus things that *may* become relevant assuming certain teams win certain things.

2- Specific questions I tend to ask myself after almost every debate:

-Assuming both teams won all their arguments, who would win the debate?

-Is there a major execution error?

-Is there a team lacking offense on any given position?

-Has either team won an impact framing argument by virtue of execution or evidence?

-Is there significant argument interaction?

3- I determine which questions require reading evidence. Ross Smith taught me that starting with the evidence first can result in decisions that de-emphasize the important argument interactions that the debaters work hard at establishing during their speeches. There are lots of questions, however, where the quality of the evidence is an essential component of resolving a key question of the debate.

4- Dueling Banjos: After I figure out the issues that need evidence I create little duals on my flow between the relevant arguments in the mini-debate.  It is helpful when I read the evidence or examine the arguments to think of it in terms of a mini-debate so that I don't get caught up thinking about the potential implications of the evidence or argument for issues beyond the part that I am trying to resolve. If I don’t do this then I can get lost down the rabbit hole.

5- Devil’s Advocate: After I answer all the questions I have come up with right after the debate, I play devil's advocate with myself two times. This is something that I learned from David Heidt. Basically, I write a mini-ballot for the team I think has won the debate. Something super short like "I vote AFF because I think the case impacts happen faster than the DA." Then, I pretend I am the other team and cross ex myself on the "what abouts?" I often end up determining that the "What abouts?" are good arguments that are just not in the debate. Sometimes, however, the "What abouts" force me to look at something I may have overlooked. I would say that 85-90 percent of the time I vote the way I wrote the RFD but sometimes I realize I was overlooking something important.

6- I isolate issues in the debate that "test my judge philosophy" so that I can tell the debaters after the debate that other judges may vote on X but my personal philosophy is Y because _____. Here is an example: at our district tournament a couple of years back I was on the bottom of a 2-1 when the 2ar forgot to go to a sheet of paper where the Neg had extended an argument that the status quo solved all the aff so vote neg on presumption. The other two judges thought it was bad and didn't vote on it. I am still at the stage of my judging career where bad arguments need to be called bad arguments. So, I voted neg and explained that the aff was winning the rest of the debate, but that in my view of the debate was decided on something technical. Inevitably, this happens about once a tournament.

7- Preventing the RFD that never ends: After I make my decision, I sit down and write the first 45-60 seconds of my decision out so that I can read aloud the short synopsis of how I voted. This is something I learned from Will Repko. For panel debates, I tend to write out a good chunk of my RFD just in case someone takes longer to decide and to ensure that I keep my comments concise. I have found that often times the debaters want to focus on the central question(s) of the debate and my ramblings about other things turns out to be less interesting to them.

8- The Triad:  Sometimes it varies on the situation, but I try to give exactly three pieces of advice for both teams. Numbering the advice and limiting it to 3 helps me not wander around my RFD with random pieces of advice. I have found that the thing that really makes debaters angry is when I have voted against them and then flippantly say something like "you could have done X better" and the debaters freak out and say "Dude, this is my overview where I said X exactly like you just did!" The key to avoiding those interactions is for me not to venture into random musings on the fly.

9) Personal judging idiosyncrasies:

I usually decide any theory debate as an "option of last resort" for the team that needs it to win.

I usually decide a link debate first before worrying about uniqueness because of my belief that uniqueness is often a question of the direction of the link.

I usually wear head phones to try to minimize being influenced by other judges.

I usually go up to the debaters to call for cards and hand them a sheet of paper with list of cards I want so as to not influence the other judges. This isn’t as relevant if there is an email chain going.

I usually ask to go last (or later) if I am on the bottom of a big split (4-1) so I can get a sense of where I split with the majority of judges.

I usually go for a walk around the hall once before I come back and look at my whole list of questions and my thought process to make sure I am comfortable with it before I sign my ballot.

Thank you for the opportunity to judge you.

Jarrod

//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

Paradigm.

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

Debated at Samford University.

Currently coaching as a graduate student at Wake Forest.

Top level stuff:

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

Specifics:

Framework:

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

Non-traditional affs:

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

Disad/Counterplans:

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

Kritiks:

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

Tips for speaks:

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

Other stuff:

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

paradigm writing is confusing bc it ultimately will not tell u much abt how i evaluate debates.

i flow and pay attention to concessions (unless told not to by debaters AND offered an alternative system of evaluation). i wouldn't call myself a flow-centric judge but the flow is important for my decisions bc coverage and the interaction of arguments dictate who gets what offense. my decisions are almost always premised on an offense/defense paradigm (tho this can become complicated in models of debate where people don't 'solve' per se).

i don't believe that judges get rid of all our preconceived assumptions (or any of them tbh) prior to entering the debate but that doesn't mean i'll refuse to listen to ur argument if it's different from how i feel abt debate or the world.

framing and argument comparison is more important than (is also the same thing as) impact calculus-- ur blocks will not tell u much abt how arguments interact but u in the round can take note of their interaction. argument interaction is crucial for both aff and neg. how much of the aff does the alt solve, and vice versa? what disads to the aff/alt are u going for and how do they interact w the offense the aff/alt is winning? if u win ur theory of power, what does that mean for the debate abt aff/alt solvency? etc...

i like good cx. it doesn't happen often, but debates can be won and lost in cx. what does happen often is that arguments can be dismissed or proven in a good cx. strategize. if redirecting or diverting the question is ur style, do it, but please do it well.

ONLINE DEBATING— clarity and slowing down are critical to deal with internet lag. ur judges no longer have the same cues bc of the limitations of the screen. plz account for this when debating in front of me. be willing to sacrifice a little speed so that i actually know wtf u are saying.

Glenbrook South '16
Wake Forest '20

Debate is a game that's most enjoyable when two teams clash in-depth over a well-prepared topic. Succeed at engaging your opponent and I'll want to judge you and vote for you. If it looks like you don't care about the round, I won't either. I feel like a lot of philosophies people have written boil down to "articulate a nuanced position and I'll vote for you." Instead of repeating other people, I'll just list a few thoughts that differentiate myself from other judges:
-Affs should read a plan.
-Fairness is an impact, and a good one.
-Link/internal link defense is a lot more persuasive than impact defense.
-Counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy are not competitive.
-Conditionality is probably good but I can be convinced otherwise.
-I give speaker points solely based on how you sound, not the content of your speech.

Background:

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

Email:

• gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

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

Pet peeves:

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

Ethics:

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

Cross-x:

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

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

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

Affirmatives:

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

Topicality:

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

Counterplans:

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

Disads:

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

Kritiks:

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

Theory:

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

Framework/T-USfg:

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

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

The paradigm is split up into things you might want to know before the tournament when doing prefs, and things you might want to know before a round.

Email address for chains and debate-related contact is rcdebate2@gmail.com

For Prefs:

1) Accommodations - I have difficulties with processing auditory information and verbalizing my decisions. I would appreciate some level of accommodation, primarily that y'all go clearer and slower, especially on tags, and signposting/labeling of arguments in the rebuttal speeches. Clear signals of when you are moving on from an argument are also welcome - I flow on my laptop, and often end up flowing upwards of 2/3rds of what you say verbatim pretty much straight down with some attempts at matching up arguments on the flow, but I need some help/signalling from debaters as per when one argument ends and another begins. Please email me at the address above regarding questions about decisions not asked during RFDs or further lines of clarification.

2) Framework - I am not often persuaded by framework/T-USFG negative arguments, so I'm not a safe bet in those rounds. When I do judge those rounds, I am more persuaded by arguments focusing on potential material educational benefits of debate than fairness (fairness is not an impact, as I do not understand why debate is an intrinsic good), but it's still a pretty uphill battle.

3) Experience - did LD in high school, four years of policy in college, and this is my fifth year of coaching and judging as a graduate student assistant. I largely read critical arguments and have judged mostly k-on-k debates and clash rounds, with a few policy rounds thrown in. I was a 2A, and the critical affirmatives I wrote were largely high theory shenanigans related to race, war, and imperialism.

4) Orientation to judging - I consider judging to be a job - I'm in the pool because it's related to obligations tied to my employment. I respect debaters time, effort, and scholarship and try to give feedback that will help refine argumentation and scholarship. Further, I don't have any strong identification as an educator, a blank slate, or a rational policy/decision-maker. This means that, especially in critical rounds, I would appreciate some instruction regarding how I should be viewing/judging the arguments in the debate, but otherwise I'll just default to what's in the next bullet point. I enjoy learning while judging, so new ways to see things or just some fun facts are always appreciated speaker points-wise.

5) How I judge - I see my role in debate as the person that has to be persuaded to press either the affirmative or negative button on tabroom based on what happens in the round. The affirmative should probably make a claim to doing something good, and the negative should say that whatever the aff did is either a) bad or b) doesn't do anything good. I start my decisions with framework/framing arguments - who's told me what the function of the debate should be and how to judge who has done that function better. I then evaluate either a) what's up with the aff in the 2AR based on what can be mobilized from the 1AR - how is it being extended, does it still do stuff, etc. and/or b) what core issue(s) of the debate the 2NR has identified/hinges on.

I often have some idea of b) going in to the 2AR, which entails I generally have some sense of what the aff would need to address to win (i.e. prove their advocacy is still good and 'solves' in some way), which leads to some quick decisions on my part - if my decision takes a while, either I'm trying to figure out how to word my decision properly and/or I'm very confused about what's happening/missed something. I care a lot about good warranting in the last speeches for arguments you're going for, and of course clear judge instruction and weighing. I'm not the most technical judge, but I do care that important arguments are answered although I would like the function of whatever dropped argument is being extended to be explained. You're better off going for a few well explained arguments rather than trying to cover everything.

For this next part, these are largely preferences/tendencies in how I view things based off of my experience with judging, and are subject to change/what happens in rounds.

Before a round:

1) Evidence quality vs analytic argumentation - I like good evidence, and I do not mind when debaters apply evidence in creative contexts, but evidence that you read is not by itself an argument. I often read evidence while it's being read in a speech, in cross-x, or during prep time because of my difficulties with processing auditory information. I don't think you need a card for everything, and also value good extrapolation of warrants, analysis and comparison of authors and citations, and applications of evidence.

I appreciate historical and contemporary examples (and metaphors/analogies), especially when it comes from your evidence, but I also need those examples to be well explained - an example is not in and of itself a warrant, but they're pretty essential for me to understand your argument and find what you're saying persuasive. Examples help concretize your warrants and make your argument something I can understand better - it's okay to kind of treat me like somebody who doesn't easily understand what people are saying, especially when they say it very quickly. Jargon's fine but we might not agree on the meaning of stuff so explain what you actually mean when you can.

2) Presumption - it's real, and if I don't think the 2AR sufficiently defends that the aff is good in some way the chance I end up voting negative at least a bit - also, it's not often that presumption is the best 2NR, it should be paired with some offense. I probably am amenable to presumption arguments because I think case debate is important. You don't have to put stuff directly on case flow, but aff's get away with so many things they shouldn't especially when it comes to how well their internal links are supported by the evidence, and it pains me to watch 2Ns miss some of that stuff.

I start my decisions (in my head) with the question of presumption/what the aff does, so keep that in mind. I tend to let negative alternatives get away with murder (although please don't call random alt related arguments a floating PIC it's really confusing for me) it despite having been a 2A, so watch out for that and point out when they don't haven't extended warrants. I can be persuaded that presumption flips affirmative, but that might just be because I don't entirely understand that phrase.

3) Framework (not T-USFG but for policy aff v k or k v k rounds) - I don't care as much about fairness, but I do think that both policy and critical teams should be forwarding arguments about how debate and arguments works and how I should be judging them. Debate theory arguments supported by actual theoretical arguments (be they critical or not) are valuable. For policy affs, I think of framework as a question of you telling me why talking about a plan might actually lead to the impact being addressed. For the negative, you can do some real damage here - tell me why the aff can't resolve what it's talking about, and what you're doing differently. I'm cool with whatever epistemology/ontology/affect/performance/ethics stuff you want to talk about.

I do think that people can make good arguments for how and why debate 'does things,' because it's a weird community full of some weird repetitions, but it's a question of how you explain that (and if you think debate doesn't 'do anything' you really gotta tell me what that means). Questions of 'spill over' and 'the ballot' are often red herrings for more substantive analysis of how the relationship between debaters, debates, policy debate as a format/medium of speech, the debate community, academic institutions, and 'the real world' works, so less debate jargon and more explanation helps.

4) Links and Perms - I really appreciate a good link argument with a quotation from the affirmative, an example, and an impact. You don't need a card for your links, as good analysis applied to specific parts of the aff will do the trick, but cards can help a ton. I appreciate depth of a link rather than several link arguments.

I don't often care for most 'no perms' debate theory arguments (like method v method means no perms bc advocacy can shift kind of arguments), and in those cases I would be more persuaded by no perms arguments grounded in theories of performance and speech (taken broadly) applied to debate. I'd prefer that the neg wins a substantive link as a DA or some degree of mutual exclusivity/trade-off. It helps me understand the difference between the aff and the neg better when DAs to the perm that are not just link arguments are applied to how the aff has explained the permutation. "Do both" is rarely enough in the 2AC, and by the 1AR I would like to know how the perm works more in depth - framework arguments about debate help here.

5) Overviews - I prefer short overviews that give me a primer on what to expect for the rest of the 9 minutes on the line-by-line + identification/flagging of important arguments (like links, tricks, and turns case stuff), but if you gotta do the long overview go for it, they are fine but a bit difficult to flow - it would be appreciated if you made the lines between the different chunks of argument you're making more clear if that's the case. It's easier for me to flow when debaters slow and then speed up; otherwise I fail to catch certain key warrants. It's also fine if you don't care too much about the flow and do whatever.

6) Theory - both policy and critical arguments rely on theoretical premises, and I'd appreciate when folks are ready to make them explicit. Theory should be a building block in a broader argument, so the arguments you make don't have to use evidence from authors that are 100% theoretically consistent with each other, but you should still be somewhat prepared to defend the political implications, associations, and (mis)uses of the theoretical dispositions your evidence is tied to. Big contradictions between authors and lit bases, however, do matter. I'm sympathetic to arguments about how theory functions in academia/academic community for better or for worse, but it's not necessarily only tied to that context.

Winning big theory thesis claims does not always mean that you win the debate (unless such claims go uncontested, and even then I need a brief explanation for why that matters). Theory is significant as a way of explaining how stuff works and how to engage in stuff, but an advocacy can be good (and a link valid) even if you 'lose' parts of the theory debate. I see theory and praxis as intertwined but sometimes it's worth making the distinction to explain warrants, so focusing on highlighting both (or explaining how they might be one and the same) helps me out when I am making my decisions.

Preferred Name “Nae” pls and thx :)

6 bids to the TOC senior year

3x NDT First Round

For Email Chains: edwardsnevan@gmail.com

College Paradigm:

Do what you want and I will vote for who wins I care very little what anyone at this level reads as long as isn't blatantly racist, sexist, homphobic, etc. Just do you the best you can.

HS Paradigm w/ some edits:

I am a young judge and I am still figuring out my ideas about debate so this paradigm will be an image of what I currently think about the activity. My favorite Judges: Shree Asware, DB, DSRB, Eli Smith, Rosie Valdez, Nicholas Brady, Sheryl Kaczmerick. Here's a list of what I think about certain arguments/ideas.

TLDR: I don't care about what you do just do it well. I can judge the 7 off CP/DA debate or the straight up clash debate. I'm down with speed but will yell "clear" if you're just mumbling. GLHF.

BTW: I make decisions quick it isn't a reflection of y'all I just think debates are usually pretty clear for me. I also have noticed I make a lot of faces and am pretty transparent about how I feel about stuff....take that as you wish.

Tech = Truth- i do believe technical debate is incredibly important to keep the flow ordered and to stop judge intervention BUT only if you are winning the meta-framing of the debate that makes your technical arguments true under your vision of the world. I'm also willing to throw the flow out the debate if compelling arguments are made by the debaters that it's a bad model for how I adjudicate. WARNING: This means you need to have a clear way for me to evaluate the debate absent the flow or I will default to it ie "flow bad" isn't enough.

Theory = Needs an interp not just xx is bad vote them down, but I'm always down to judge a theory debate.

DA- They're fine. I'm capable with judging them and have no problem keeping up with normative policy debate. I enjoy impact turns and I think the most important part of this debate is the impact calc/impact framing. I need reasons why your impact comes first and how it interacts with the other team's impacts. If you're both going for an extinction claim you need to win the probability and timeframe debate with some good evidence.

CP- I enjoy the theory debates here and I think they are important to set precedents for what debate should look like. I lean slightly aff on theory but I think I lean more neg against the permutation if it's well debated out. I think the affirmatives's best bet in front of me is to take out the net benefit unless the CP is just not competitive with the aff. NO JUDGE KICKING THE COUNTERPLAN NO NO NO EITHER GO FOR IT OR DON'T PLS AND THANKS.

K's- this is what I do and i'm most familiar with but this is a double edged sword because it means i expect you to be on point about how you articulate these arguments. Specific links are killer, but generic links applied directly to the aff are just as powerful when warranted. You can kick the alt and go for presumption but that usually requires you winning a heavy impact framing claim. Do your thing and make it interesting debate with your ideas and don't read me your generic Cap blocks (i do enjoy a good cap k though) that have nothing to do with what's going on in the debate. MORE EXAMPLES PLEASE!!!!

K AFF's- non-traditional affirmatives are also my bread and butter. I love how creative these affs can be and the educational benefit that these affs show. Be passionate and care about what you're doing and use your 1AC as a weapon against every negative strategy to garner offense as well as the permutation. Go for nuanced framing arguments and don't be scared of an impact turn. Having Roberto as my partner and Amber Kelsie/Taylor Brough as my coaches has forced me to learn a lot more high theory and I actually enjoy it if done right just know what you're talking about or I will be sad. :(

T - I actually like T against policy aff's a lot if you're gonna normatively affirm the topic you better do it right ;).

FW- this is where I feel like I get pathologized a lot on how I feel. The summer before my senior year my partner and I went for straight-up framework every round with fairness and limits arguments. I think this position run correctly combined with nuanced case engagement with the aff is actually a fantastic argument especially against aff's with weak topic links. I think arguments like dialogue, truth-testing, institutional engagement > fairness, limits, ground BECAUSE the latter group of impacts end up being internal links to the prior. There's a TVA to almost everything so get creative, but TVA with a card that applies to the aff is a killer. If you're aff in these debates you should either impact turn everything or have a model of debate with some clear aff and neg ground. There are a bunch of ways to debate framework but having offense is the key to winning any of those strategies. ALSO DON'T FORGET THE AFF. YOU WROTE IT FOR A REASON EXTEND IT EVERYWHERE.

SIDE NOTE: All pettiness and shade is invited if you make me laugh or throw a quick jab of quirky shade at the other team I will probably up your speaks. If you make fun of Roberto (my partner) I will up your speaks. Also, Naruto/Bleach/My Hero Academia references will be rewarded.

OTHER SIDE NOTE: I grow increasingly tired of people yelling at eachother in CX and the trend of white cis-men constantly interrupting and talking over black folk/poc/women/queer/trans folk. If you do this I will probably be less inclined to care about whatever you say in CX and I may slightly punish your speaks.

Anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. will cause me to stop the round and move on with my life

Everything is a performance.You can hmu on my email at the top for any questions. Good Luck!

I have been involved with debate for a min now. All debates are performances . I believe education should be what debates are about . I read the topic paper every year( or when it stop being Throw backs). Topical education is something i consider but can be impact turned. Topicality is a method of the objective game. I will vote on conversations of community norms like predictability good , switch side , or even static notions of politics. Framework is how we frame our work. Method debates I welcome. We are intellectuals so we should be responsible for such i.e you can be voted down if the debaters or their positions/in round performance are racist, sexist, classist, or ableist . If not voted down,I still reserve the discretion to give the debater(s) responsible a 3.5 in speaker points . Do what you do and do it well.

Put me on the email chain: keganferguson@gmail.com.

Previously ADOD at North Broward Prep for 3 years. Did policy debate at Indiana University and PF/LD/Extemp at Ben Davis High School in Indianapolis, IN.

***Policy***

Debate is primarily a competition. Yes it teaches us many skills and influences how we develop as people, but is still a game with a winner and a loser at its core. I believe that central truth produces debate’s best and worst outcomes.

It can result in thorough, well-researched rounds that delve into the nuances of a specific issue. Or it can produce scattershot 12-off strategies that rely on mistakes to have a chance of victory. It can make people view competitors with respect and admiration for their commitment to the activity. Or it can make us view them as our opposition, to be steamrolled and reduced to nothing whenever possible. I’ll evaluate arguments fairly regardless of the strategy used or the way you treat opponents, but will use speaks to reflect what I perceive as the quality of the round. It's not too hard to get high speaks in front of me. Have a clear strategy, execute it well, and make the debate enjoyable for all involved.

No argument is ‘too bad’ to win in front of me. If it’s truly so egregious, it’s the burden of the opposing team to explain why in the debate. I try hard not to intervene and inject personal biases, but I do still have them (listed below) and they influence the decisions I make.

All this being said – I’m an educator at the end of the day, and debate is an activity for students in an academic setting. If you do things to make the debate space feel unsafe for those involved I will intervene.

K AFFs

I prefer critiques to include research about the topic, but it’s not required. Clear impact turns to the core negative standards on framework are vital – spewing nebulous and blippy arguments titled things like ‘Plasticity DA’ to T in the 2ac is terminally unpersuasive. If you’re not contextualizing your impact turns as direct answers to fairness, clash, etc. you’re in a hole from the start. Ideally, you will also present a straightforward and well explained vision of debate and develop reasons why it can preserve a limited argumentative venue.

I’m more persuaded by presumption arguments vs. K affs than most judges. 2AR’s tend to mishandle offensive, cruel optimism-style arguments and get themselves into trouble.

T USFG

You need to explain how the aff’s C/I explodes limits and to what extent, same as you would against a policy affirmative when going for T. What style affirmative does it allow for? Why is it bad for debate, and how bad?

When I vote affirmative it’s usually because of a sequencing claim about dropped case arguments or an unclear response to the aff’s impact turns to framework impacts.

When I vote negative it’s usually because you win fairness is a priori and the only thing the ballot can resolve, that a limited model of debate internal link turns aff impacts through improved research/iterative testing, or that the Aff’s scholarship is included in your model.

Theory

Not a fan of heavy theory debates, but I’ve judged quite a few. Definitely lean neg on conditionality – but willing to vote for it if competently extended and technically won by the affirmative. As a 2a, process counterplans were not my favorite argument in debate, and I tend to lean aff on competition arguments depending on the scope of the topic + CP mechanisms. Still not afraid to vote neg quickly and easily if you’re ahead on the technical aspects in this portion of debate.

Theory debates that rely on me to fill-in arguments where you have just said random technical debate jargon - nonstarter. You should slow down on your theory analytics as well – I often find myself missing nuance when it’s extended by reading blocks as fast as possible.

*** Public Forum Debate ***

I competed in Indiana in high school, and very much understand the frustrations of losing debates on new arguments, evidence spin, ‘I just don’t believe you,’ etc. in front of lay judges. I’ll try my hardest to purely evaluate the debate off of the flow, which means giving equal weight and consideration to arguments that are not traditionally made in Public Forum. I think judges should approach debate with an open mind, and be ready to listen to students who put just as much effort and thought into their non-traditional strategies as other teams have.

Indicating an openness to theoretical and critical arguments does not mean that you should necessarily try reading these arguments in front of me for the first time. I find myself judging very poorly executed strategies in these lanes pretty often, and the speaker points reflect it. Please stick with what you’ve been practicing, as this is the best way to win my ballot. Trying to punk another team on theory if you never go for it will usually not work out well for you.

Competing in policy for 4 years in college has left me with many, somewhat negative, opinions on the pedagogical quality of argumentation in PF. Research is often not presented to me in a clear and digestible way (read: cards), and I’ve been handed a 20+ page PDF as the ‘source’ for an argument too many times to count. Saying ‘nuclear war doesn’t happen, MAD checks that’s Ferguson,’ and then handing me a piece of evidence with 2 minutes of highlighted text will not go your way. I won’t read deep into evidence that has not been explained and warranted during the debate, as I think that leads to pretty sizable judge intervention and more arbitrary decisions than one that remains flow-centric.

I’m a big advocate of disclosure in PF. The best debates are ones where one team has a thoroughly prepared strategies against a case, and the other team really knows the ins and outs of their own contentions. I’m not sympathetic at all to arguments about prep-outs – I’m terminally convinced that they’re good. I’m not convinced by arguments about how they hurt small schools – I competed at a very tiny college program that ONLY survived because of the wiki. I’m not sympathetic to arguments about people ‘stealing research,’ because it’s obviously not ‘stealing’ and lazy debaters that download wiki cases usually get beaten because they don’t know the nuances of the arguments they’re reading. If you disclose on the wiki, you will get a slight speaker bump. If you disclose pre-round, same deal. Note: this does not mean that disclosure theory is an auto-win by any means. You will have to technically execute it and win that disclosure is good during the debate – I won’t copy and paste my paradigm into the ballot.

Nitpicky other thoughts that may be helpful:

· Don’t take forever finding your evidence – especially if it’s in your own case. If it drags on too long (3-4 minutes) I will begin to run prep time. There’s clearly a reasonable window of time in which you can find a piece of evidence you claimed to have literally just read. If you can’t find it, you probably didn’t actually cut/read it.

· Don’t ever go back to your own case in first rebuttal just to ‘build it up some more.’ I will not be flowing if you are not making new arguments, and it’s a complete waste of time to rebuild a case they have not yet answered. There are some exceptions to this if you have framing arguments or whatnot – but 99% of the time you should just be answering your opponent’s case. To me, it reads as a clear sign that someone is a relative beginner in Public Forum when this occurs.

· Second rebuttal should frontline their case.

· Summary should include defensive and dropped arguments, but time should be allocated according to the other teams’ coverage.

· Impact framing arguments that are simply ‘X issue is not discussed enough, so prioritize it’ are not convincing to me in the slightest. You need to have a clear and offensive reason why not prioritizing your impact filter is bad, not just say that it’s important and people never give it notice. Ask yourself this question: what is the impact of your framing being ignored?

· Warrants beat tagline extensions of cards 99% of the time.

None of the above are ‘rules’ for how to go about earning my ballot. You could violate any one of the above and still win, but it’s likely only going to happen if your opponent is making major mistakes. Lastly, I think that topic knowledge wins just as many debates as a cleverly constructed case does. You should try your best to be the most knowledgeable person in the room on any given PF topic, because you’ll usually have what it takes to flexibly respond to unpredicted arguments and embarrass your opponents in cross.

Speaker point scale:

29.5+ - You’re debating like you’re already in the final round, and you deserve top speaker at this tournament.

29-29.5 – Debating like a quarterfinalist.

28.5 – 29 – Solid bubble/doubles team

28-28.5 – Debating like you should be around .500 or slightly below

27.5-28 – Serious room for improvement

Below 27.5 – You were disrespectful to the extreme or cheated. Probably around here if you just give up as well.

Cypress Bay High School

Wake Forest University

Baylor University

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny and/or just great debating.

I'll vote for anything, just turn up. What follows are my existing thoughts/biases on how to win in front of me in policy debates, please scroll to the bottom for LD and PF.

Email: robertofr99@gmail.com

CX Paradigm: NDT Updates 3/29/23

T: I don't hold strong enough opinions about topic wording and plans to stand by in a debate so judge direction on what SHOULD matter is critical. I don't judge many though and because of that I'd say I'm more likely to default to competing interpretations than not. It would have to be a pretty clear case for me to vote on reasonability. End of year thoughts: nothing is AI and everything is nature; T-subsets is mostly valid.

FW: You can go for it. Thoughts: Unlike other judges, I think to win you need to prove your model is strictly better than a model that includes the aff, which means you should probably be able to prove that a solely plan-based model would be better than the mixed status quo.

I default to thinking of these as debates about models and not about interpretations of the wording of the resolution. That means I prefer that the aff have a counter-interp, even if that counter-interp is totally unlimited. What matters is that both teams have a vision of what their model looks like. No counter-interp is also valid and often strategic so feel free to do that too.

I won't say whether fairness is an impact because that depends on what is said and won in any given debate, but what I will say is that proving that debate is a game does not, on its own, strongly imply that fairness is an intrinsic good. Fairness is also a sliding scale, so I expect nuance about the magnitude of the internal link between the violation or the counter-interp and the fairness impact.

I think that FW teams would benefit from incorporating some kind of uniqueness argument or warrant into their skills modules that substantiates why the skills we learn from plan-based debating are valuable in the current political moment. I often find that teams lose debates where they are winning their limits arguments by failing to justify the value of THIS fair game.

K: Do whatever, odds are I've read something you are reading or someone citing else citing the same people as your authors. That means jargon is fine as long as it's used meaningfully. Big words are meant to convey even bigger ideas in less time so using jargon precisely can really elevate the quality of your speech, but on the other hand, just stringing words together without much thought may really hurt your speech. Performance debate is great, all kinds of art can be evidence as long as I can see/hear/flow it (unless there's a reason I shouldn't I'm up for that too, but I won't stop flowing your opponents speeches during the debate even if you ask me to, that is up to them).

CP: I guess this is more about conditionality than anything, I'd rather not have to deal with more than 4 or 5 conditional advocacies or I might actually vote on condo. I think most counter-plans should have solvency advocates, I can't think of an example that wouldn't off the top of my head but I'm hesitant to say I wouldn't be convinced by ANY CP without one.

DAs: I think the spill-over DA is just a bad argument. If you win it you win it but I feel like I have to be upfront about thinking this argument is garbage.

LD Paradigm:

I'm down with anything, except for really outlandish tricks and some frivolous theory. You could still win "Topic auto-affirms/negates because of definitions" in front of me but my bar is as low as "even if that's true we should ignore it and debate a common understanding of the resolution for X, Y, Z reasons" for me to throw away those kinds of arguments. I have a very deep background in critical theory and philosophy so Phil, K debating, and Skep are all fine by me as long as you remember to explain why I should vote for you rather than just exposing on an argument and hoping that will translate to a win. I like evidence, but evidence can be poetry, music, art, memes, etc. as long as it's used to substantiate something and not just presented without argument.

PF Paradigm:

You should read my other paradigms to get an idea of what I think of different types of arguments, this section is mostly dedicated to what I think of PF norms.

I care about evidence more than most PF judges, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to reference current events to make points but I think having evidence prepared is definitely more convincing than listing off things that I may or may not have heard of to prove a point. I will want to receive any evidence you use in the debate, so that I can evaluate the comparative quality of evidence when deciding things after the debate. I will prefer low quality delivery of high quality arguments over high quality delivery of low quality arguments.

I will not deduct speaker points for superficial things like profanity or dress, I care about rhetoric as a tool of persuasion and information exchange not as a show of pageantry. Be intentional about what you are saying and why are you are saying it, and I will reward you based on the persuasiveness of that delivery.

Please be respectful to your opponents, your partner, and me in debates, and that means being respectful of our time during prep and cross-examination. If people ask to see your evidence, don't make them waste prep time for you to send it to them, they should already have it.

If you have any specific questions about types of arguments in PF or norms, please feel free to ask me. As a general rule, if it exists in policy or LD I'm willing to vote for it but also willing to vote against it on the basis that these arguments are illegitimate in PF, you just have to actually win that.

My email address is fg2644@gmail.com. Please put me on the email chain if that's still a thing! And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to clarify/answer them!

I don't have any real opinions re: debate controversies, so I'll evaluate the debate as you instruct me to. That being said, even conceded claims require warrants/explanations.

My sense is that I'm more open than many judges to claims that aren't necessarily backed up by "carded evidence" read in the debate, but that can be fact-checked on Google and/or make obvious sense. I think you should be rewarded for reading for pleasure and to become an informed person, rather than just focusing on cutting cards.

More important to me than whether you read a plan text is whether you provide a clear path forward/propose a change to be made, and explain how that change would resolve/lessen the harms you've outlined. That being said, I'm an accounting major and my favorite candidate in the 2020 primary is Mayor Pete, so make of that what you will about my politics/openness to radicalism...

I will give the other team a lot of leeway in their responses if I can't comprehend your argument/couldn't explain it back to you (if I can't understand when I have nothing I have to do or think about other than your argument, how can I expect your opponents to get it while they also have to put together speech docs and come up with a coherent response, all while watching the clock to make sure they don't use too much prep time?). I'll make clear facial expressions to show you if I'm not "getting it" so you can adjust your explanation accordingly.

My background: I was always nervous being judged in high school by people I'd never heard of, so if it helps, I debated for 4 years at Niles West and on and off freshman-junior year of college at Wake (more off than on, honestly). I was in the top 5 speakers at the TOC my senior year, but never attended a major tournament later in the year than October in college. Go into the debate comfortable that I can keep up with whatever happens technically, but that it's been quite a while since I've thought much about debate, so my understandings may be "outdated" or out of line with what have since become norms. Because I do not currently debate or do research, my knowledge of the topic (acronyms, community norms about the best t-interp, etc) is limited. You should assume I know no more than any educated person who reads the news.

Justin Green - Head Coach - Wake Forest University

wfudbt@gmail.com

I plan to clap when the round is done; your effort is appreciated!

Argument Defaults

Preference - The good ones about the topic. Most of my research is on the policy side, but lucky to interact with great debaters and coaches across a wide spectrum of approaches for many years.

Topicality - Yes offense first; defense is essential. Impact turning or going just with reasonability without a quality counter-interp rarely wins.

Policy Aff v the K - Specificity is crucial for both sides. It's rare that I don't consider both the effects of the plan and the scholastic/rhetorical choices including the interactions between the two. Aff's should be prepared to defend the claims made in the 1ac. Winning the world is ordered by an oppressive structure is not enough.

CP Theory - Legitimacy of process CP's increases with more specific advocates. Some conditionality most likely OK - go beyond 2 or 3 or 2nc CP out of impact turns to do the opposite of the 1nc impact; less likely to be ok.

Case Debates - Where have all my heroes gone?

Effective Techniques:

- Articulate when reading! There has been an increasing trend in debates I watch where syllables are consistently muddled or skipped. I'll yell clearer. If I yell it twice know that you are in the danger zone.

- Cross Ex Matters! and it has a time limit – I listen, flow, and those who reference answers from the CX are likely to get higher points. When the timer goes off, it's judge prep even if the two teams decide to continue the CX during prep time. If the two side agree on something when a judge is not there "ex. neg agreed they could kick planks or part of the alt"...please fill me in.

- Smart Analytics exposing flaws can go a long way. Internal link chains and neg K alt solvency are two of many places where this can potentially be effective.

- Quality of Evidence+Quality of Explanation+Quality of comparison=weight of argument

- 2 Tips for last rebuttals beyond impact calculation - Give your partners credit explicitly. Acknowledge where the other side might be correct, but why that is not enough.

Just in case it happens, some strong defaults....

- No shenanigans policy - I expect a 2v2 debate. No three person teams, no one person taking all the speech time, please don't ask for something besides a debate to determine a winner, etc. Two people speaking in the same speech, ok if part of a pre-scripted performance early in the debate. In subsequent speeches, only one person's words count.

- If you ask for a 30. Your speaker points will likely have a 3 in it; 3 will most likely not be the first number. If both you and your partner are asking for a 30, you are playing a dangerous game given the previous sentence.

- Hard to imagine myself voting on elements not related directly to an argument made in the debate (coin flips, previous debates, what their coach did, how someone interacted outside the debate, initials at the end of the card, month of the year). Verified blatant false disclosure of more than a card or two and could be a voting issue.

- Evidence ethics. Yes, follow AFA, ADA and CEDA guidelines. And also, not really trying to vote on: whether the citation includes date accessed, initials of the card cutter (or who cut the card), if there were accidental exclusions of the text that had no material effect.

ENJOY!

Hi, I'm Tessa -- I use she/they pronouns and will openly laugh if you call me "judge" at any point during the debate.

Got a few First Rounds to the NDT at Wake Forest University, alongside a generally high level of competitive success writ large. My college career was spent reading solely critical arguments, although I spent quite a lot of time as a policy debater in high school as well. Since leaving debate, I have spent time both in the cybersecurity and AI industries as well as the academy discussing AI and critical theory. I am heavily involved in grassroots organizing as well.

Currently coaching for University of Iowa and Head-Royce Highschool.

Yes I want to be on the email chain -- ask for my email if you don't have it (Don't put your emails online in searchable places like this, kids!).

***Spark Notes***

Do what you love. If you have no passion in your heart, then do what you are good at. Debate is about scholarship, rhetoric, and competition, so do one or more of those well and you will probably have my ballot. Care about one of those and you will probably get good speaks too.

I enjoy daring, ambitious, and nuanced strategies and will reward debaters who put in the work to execute them, whether it is a hyperspecific CP/DA strategy or a complex new interpretation of a critical theory.

All of my assumptions and proclivities are endlessly negotiable and if a team makes an argument I will do my best to put that before my own thoughts on the matter.

Judge instruction is the single most important aspect of the debate, especially the final rebuttals and how both teams frame and compare offense will massively influence how I approach my flow. Explicitly comparing and evaluating offense in the 2AR and 2NR will be the surest route to my ballot regardless of the content of the debate. Extending offense without instructing me on how to compare it to the other side will leave me in the unfortunate position of having to think too deeply about the debate, which neither of us want.

I tend to view arguments > evidence. Debate is a communicative activity, and therefore how I evaluate evidence is filtered through what I am told about it, all else being equal. For me, reading evidence after the debate occurs when it is sufficiently flagged by one or both teams as central to a key issue in the debate. Good evidence is not an excuse for a bad articulation, but can be a net benefit to a good one. That said, quoting, rehighlighting, or otherwise engaging with both your own and opponents evidence will greatly influence the weight I assign to arguments and the speaker points I award.

If you do wish me to toss out the flow but please tell me to do so explicitly, early, and give me a clear alternative way to adjudicate the debate. I will likely take notes on the debate even if told to toss out the flow, but that is likely comments to share in the post round.

***Clash debates***

Okay, I know this is the only part of a paradigm anyone ever reads so...

1. I judge *a lot* of these debates. Almost all of my ballots end up being focused on execution and top level framing. Be on top of those two and you'll have a good shot at my ballot regardless of what you read. This applies to form, not just content. I am very happy when explicitly told why I should vote on procedural impacts over content, or vibes/truth over line by line, or prioritize methods over aesthetics, or whatever other form argument you might be implicitly making.
2. "Intrinsic goods" do not exist. Procedural impacts might, but I must be convinced as to why and how they interact with other concerns about how we should use this pace. Make warrants for fairness as an impact and do impact calculus about why it outweighs. Saying "it comes first because debate is a game" will rarely get my ballot if given a similarly tagline aff response. I tend to vote for impacts other than fairness far more often as it seems notably difficult for many debaters to articulate fairness beyond such an internal link or tautological defense of old school debate.
3. Defense is underrated in these debates. Most of my decisions in these debates are heavily influenced by small, smart defensive arguments that break ties between well-crafted pieces of offense on both sides. This is especially true for FW arguments on the aff or neg. I find that most affirmatives lose by underestimating small negative defensive arguments at the level of a FW with both policy and critical affirmatives.

***Can't believe I have to say this but...***

- Anti-blackness, other forms of racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, etc. will be responded to with anything from an autoloss to zero speaks to a 27 depending on the severity of the issue. Impact > Intentions.

- clipping is an autoloss as well and results in the lowest possible speaks.

- I do not believe the other team has the burden to call these things out and will stop the round if I feel it is unsafe or un-educational for anyone involved.

- Disclosure is good for debate and should generally be reciprocated absent safety concerns.

- And, an unclear/unflowable argument is a blank space on my flow -- I will not evaluate arguments I cannot hear and understand. Yes, even if you think you are hot shit.

Currently a coach and PhD student at The University of Kansas.

Add me to the chain plz and thank you DerekHilligoss@gmail.com

for college add rockchalkdebate@gmail.com as well

TL;DR do what you do and do it well. Don't let my preferences sway you away from doing what you want.

The biggest thing for me is that I value good impact framing/calc. If you aren't explaining why your impacts matter more then your opponents you are leaving it up for me or the other team to decide.

Framework: Go for whatever version of framework you like but I tend to think it should interact with the aff at some level. If you give the 2NC/2NR and make no reference to the aff you will find it harder to win my ballot.

Planless affs: The one note I wanna make outside of FW notes is that you have to be able to answer the "what do you do" question no matter how silly it may seem. If I don't know what the aff does after the 1AC/CX that's gonna put you in a rough spot. I don't think this means you have to do anything but you should have a good justification for why you don't have to.

Theory: condo (probably) to a certain extent is good and counterplans should (probably) have solvency advocates. I have no strong opinions just tell me how to feel.
*new strong opinion* going for condo is not a remedy for being a bad 2A---

Topicality: limits for the sake of limits probably bad?

Counterplans: cool? Do it

Disads: The only thing I wanna note here is highlight your cards better. I don't wanna have to read 30 crappy cards to get the story of the disad and it makes it easier for the aff to win with a few solid cards.

Kritiks: Specific links go a long way. This doesn't mean it has to be exactly about the plan but your application will do better than a generic "law bad" card. Applying your theory to the aff's advantages in a way that takes out solvency will make your lives so much easier.

For the aff FW I think a well developed FW argument about legal/pragmatic engagement will do more for you than fairness/limits impacts.

Random things:

If you are unclear I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. I'll make it apparent I'm not flowing to let you know you need to adjust still.

If you clip you will lose.

"reinsert card here"- nope :) read it- this is a communication activity not a robot activity.

About Me:

I have debated for three years at Georgia State and did a mixture of debate in high school. Now I’m a graduate coach at Wake Forest

I want to be on the email chain; use gsupanther84@gmail.com

General:

Slow down when reading your tag and author, or I won't be able to catch it.

If GSU debate has taught me anything, it's to be extremely open minded to a variety of arguments. If you want to run death good, afropessimism, deterrence das, no period plan flaw, K affs, traditional affs, feminist killjoy etc, go for it. Just be sure to explain why you should win with this argument. ROB will be who debated the best unless I'm given another ROB with reason to perfer it. I'm against judge fill in but will vote down oppressive/offensive language/arguments especially if the other team points it out.

Aff

Do whatever you're best at, stay topical (or be ready to explain why topicality doesn't matter), be organized, and extend your case and why it outweighs throughout. I tend to err aff on framework if they have and defend a plan text, but you have to lock in if you decide to do that, otherwise I'll be persuaded to neg's abuse claims.

Ks

I love a good k with a clear link and impact. Your alts have to be clearly explained. I'll buy links of omission but the neg has to defend why the aff can't simply perm. Negs really have to take time in the block to explain why the aff can't perm and why it's net better to do the alt alone. Affs have to explain why they can perm and why the perm is net better than aff alone or why the alt can't solve the case. Don't drop theory args, or I will have to vote the other way.

DAs

I’m good with das but there has to be work done on how it links to the aff, or I will agree with the aff on no link args. If you have a solid Nonunique arg and extend it and I will vote on that. Solid impact calc will seal the deal for me, but if the aff successfully turns the DA or explains why the case outweighs the DA, I will vote on that as well. Long story short the more clash on the DA the better.

CPs

Love a creative CP, but it needs to solve/have a net benefit (DA or a K) along with stealing aff ground; otherwise I will agree with aff's perm and theory args. Aff needs to clearly explain why CP can't solve case, beat the net benefit, and articulate why the perm is best. Don't drop theory or you lose my ballot.

T

I will vote neg on a T arg if you convince me the violation is clear, the aff's counter interpretation is unreasonable, and the impact is big. I will vote aff if they convince me that their aff is reasonable, counter interpretation is better or equal to the negs, and a benefit to their definition, but aff can chuck topicality and still win if they articulate why being topical doesn't matter or is worse for debate. If the aff locks in and says they're T however, they cannot shift or it's an auto win for the neg.

FW

I lean aff in most cases unless the neg provides me with a clear violation, story, and impact. 2acs have to clearly explain why the aff is fair and/or better. Tech is important when arguing FW but explanation is key when you arguing framework. Truth always better than tech.

CX

cross ex is binding, answer the questions honestly, don't ask why the aff should win during 1ac cross ex or generic questions like that.

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

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Put me on the email chain - lovemesomepolicydb8 [[gmail]]

My background

High School debate – None

College debate – University of Richmond

Coaching – Miami Beach High School

Bronx High School of Science

Columbia University

New York University/New York Coalition

West Georgia

University of Richmond

Vanderbilt University

Berkeley Prep

Overview points

The most important thing you should know about me is that when I finished my undergrad college degree I was done with school. Grad school/academia wasn’t for me. I took a jobs in sales (take note those few of you who still associate debate with persuasion), and spent years working for a Survey Research company before taking over the day to day operations of my own company (chemical manufacturing). This shapes my debate outlook.

1. I strive to be a judge that minimizes my beliefs to the greatest extent possible, and votes on the flow. I often vote on things I don’t believe are true but because they are dropped I’ll vote. I will do my best to flow everything and base my decision solely by what was said in the round. You want me to be a policymaker judging USFG action – cool, you want me to be an individual judging a performance – ok, I don’t care per se. I’ve voted for all styles of debate over the years, and I’ve also worked with teams that have run the spectrum of arguments. When I was a debater I didn’t like it when some judges refused to listen and vote on certain arguments (whether it be K or policy because both sides do it) and I don’t want to be grouped like that. End of the day whatever your argument is, I’m going to do my best to understand, treat you with respect, and we’ll see how it goes.

I prefer direct line by line debate above all else. By that I mean – they say/my response straight down the flow. If you are a debater who doesn’t flow to the point that you don’t respond to your opponent’s arguments because you didn’t record what they were then you may have problems winning my ballot consistently.

I view debate like a tennis match. The aff has to get the ball over the net by making an argument, then the neg has to return serve. They may return that ball at over 100mph (offensive strategies with turns and grand impacts of high magnitude) or they may go soft return (defensive arguments). Either/both could trip up the other team. You don’t need offense necessary to win my ballot (but it doesn’t hurt either).

I consider topic education my highest core value. The more topic specific cards (as opposed to backfiles) you read in a round the better all-round you’re going to be.

Providing details and drawing distinctions is always better than being vague and unclear about what you do. My threshold to vote on vagueness is way lower than my o-spec threshold.

Quality of evidence should guide your strategy. Quality always beats quantity. That said I think debaters self-censor in that if they don’t have a card they refuse to make the argument believing analytics to be of lower value then having a card. While that may be true, there are also rounds where the literature needed to properly rebut may not exist. In these cases direct analytics can often be better than generic cards that don’t apply.

If your only response to your opponent’s analytics is “you didn’t read a card”, you may be on weaker ground than you think.

The enthusiasm you display in selling your arguments can be important. A little pathos can yield positive returns.

I can vote against your opponent instead of for you. Sometimes attacking your opponent’s arguments instead of advancing your arguments can capture my ballot. Example, the neg may read a K that I don’t find very persuasive, but the aff ans turn out to be worse. Other times that strategy fails, and you need to advance a positive reason to vote for you.

I pay attention to CX and have seen teams that have won and lost rounds based on CX but that’s becoming much rarer. Any gains made in CX should be referenced in subsequent speeches.

You can try to speak as fast as you want. If you believe you are best served going as fast as you can, and not slowing down when it counts I can reflect that in your speaker points. If I don’t have an arg on my flow that’s probably not good for you. I don’t read the speech docs as you go, it’s still a communicative activity to me.

The specific arguments

If you are Aff: the only burden I will hold you to is that I will check every answer in the 2ar to make sure it has a 2ac/1ar basis. Arguments introduced in the 2ac, dropped in the 1ar, and revived in the 2ar will not count. Beyond that I’m pretty open. Do what you want on the aff. That said over the years I found myself drawn more toward the policy end of things. Affs that are willing to defend a plan or solution to the harms they identify are preferable to affs that are 9 minutes of harms only. I’m usually far more interested in the 3 aff speeches after the 1ac then the 1ac itself. Affs often lose my ballot because they concede too many negative arguments. If you don’t answer each part of an off case argument, you’re handing the ballot to the neg. Oftentimes 2ac extensions of case resolve solely around explaining your 1ac cards, the only thing I care about though is responding the 1nc cards.

If you are neg: anything goes, it’s up to the aff to stop your strategy. If you are looking for a strategy that gives you the best odds in front of me, it would be a plan inclusive CP with a topic specific net benefit. That said no one likes a nitpicker, whatever part of the aff you take objection to should have an impact.

Disads – I’d much prefer you read link/internal link/or even impact uniqueness instead of extra impact scenarios. Developing one or two impacts is preferable than 5-6, and to be honest you lose a little cred in my mind the more extinction scenarios you introduce.

CPs – I default to the lit to decide CP legitimacy. Generally speaking I can see why consult, condition, QPQ, states etc could be unsound, but the quality of the solvency ev can go a long way. Must confess the question of when the neg can kick the CP is not very interesting to me.

Case debate – I was brought up to believe if you don’t have 20+ cards on case you’re in a hole.

Topicality – votes on it. The more specific your violations the better.

Theory – I don’t believe there is a single theory argument, not even conditionality, that justifies rejecting the team over the argument. If you want to win the debate on theory, justifying why I should ignore everything else to vote here is a priori and that discussion should begin early in the debate. That said I would categorize going for theory in front of me as akin to a Hail Mary pass. I find theory debate to be a set of self-serving claims with no proof to support anything. I’m looking to vote on substantive things first and foremost.

Traditional Ks – philosophy plays a very minor role in my life. I likely haven’t read your lit directly, nor would I ever outside of debate support many of the alternatives I come across. Specific links are vital. My voting record on backfile Ks has become very low. I have no why K teams think they can read old evidence (sometimes 20-30 years old) and I’m supposed to think it’s still relevant.

New School debate/identity politics – my voting record for these types of arguments is much higher than when you are neg vs aff. If you are aff I’m often very unclear where the burden of proof line lies. Set up a threshold for pulling the trigger on an aff ballot because leaving me to my own devices may not work out in your favor. Also when I wrote above that sometimes I can vote against your opponent instead of for you, out debating your opponents on framework/I got a better root cause K than you can be a winning strat. All that said as someone who was around at the very beginning of this movement and knowing the justifications that started it, I’m a little disappointed New School debate has taken to speed reading a bunch of cards that don’t always apply.

Framework – I end here because it’s become such a large part of so many debates and I personally think it’s often a real dumb argument. Debate groupthink. If you think speed reading is the way to go in front of me you’re wrong. Depth beats breadth always. If you don’t do line by line on framework, I’ll vote for the aff that doesn’t defend the USFG. I would love for framework to evolve. IMO it’s the same arg now that it was 15 years ago and I find that very stale. You greatly underlimit yourself when your violation solely revolves around the USFG, there are plenty of other reasonable standards you could apply to teams that don’t defend the rez. Identify the voters early because I find many framework arguments to be nothing more than time kill.

Any other questions/clarifications please ask.

I am a graduate student of Communication at Pitt, currently coaching Towson, debated at Dartmouth

Paradigm writing is the worst.  It's also a farce. 

I see debate as a performance, and I vote for the better performance.  That performance can include any number of kinds of arguments.  A performance has stakes for an audience both immediate and abstracted elsewhere.  That performance should involve the endorsement (or no) of a certain politic.

I tend to evaluate debates based on comparative advantage, unless told to evaluate competing methodologies, or unless (in the context of performance debate usually) the debaters seem to think we all agreed that they are debating "competing methodologies."

Debate how you can, the best you can. 

Swag is good.  Complexity. Concretization.  Examples. Comparison. 

I don't tend to call for evidence, since it often overdetermines how I then piece together the debate.

I'm probably understanding your kritik, but it means I also probably have a higher threshold for what you must articulate.

For the time being, I will not be using my AA speaker point policy.

Wake Forest '21, Working at Harvard

Please add to the email chain: rubycklein@gmail.com & harvard.debate@gmail.com

Tech and execution matter most, presuming there are warrants and implications for your arguments.

I like to read through cards closely, so if I’m taking a while, that’s probably why.

I think the aff gets to weigh their case vs. Ks, so protracted debates about framework are rarely important. I would much prefer aff-specific link debating or more about your alternative.

Neg framework impacts about clash and the value of research are generally the most persuasive to me, but if your thing is something else, that’s fine, too. Clearly conveying why your impact matters and how it interacts with aff offense is most essential.

Turning the case is way more likely with cards. And, I really enjoy and care about turns case arguments.

International, consult, condition, etc. CPs are likely bad, but a specific advocate about the plan could help.

If the neg tells me to, my presumption is to kick the CP.

Neg-leaning on conditionality.

Inserting re-highlighting is fine if it’s to provide context and you fully explain what it reveals.  

Quick 2022 update--CX is important, use it fully. Examples make a big difference, but you have to compare your examples to theirs and show why yours are better. Quality of evidence matters--debate the strengths of your evidence vs. theirs. Finally, all the comments in a majority of paradigms about tech vs. truth are somewhat absurd. Tech can determine truth and vice-versa: they are not opposed or mutually exclusive and they can be each others' best tools. Want to emphasize your tech? Great--defend it. Want to emphasize your truths? Great--but compare them. Most of all, get into it! We are here for a bit of time together, let's make the most of it.

Updated 2020...just a small note: have fun and make the most of it! Being enthusiastic goes a long way.

Updated 2019. Coaching at Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Nothing massive has changed except I give slightly higher points across the board to match inflation. Keep in mind, I am still pleased to hear qualification debates and deep examples win rounds. I know you all work hard so I will too. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. Email: kevindkuswa at gmail dot com.

Updated 2017. Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Been judging a lot on the China topic, enjoying it. Could emphasize just about everything in the comments below, but wanted to especially highlight my thirst for good evidence qualification debates...

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

Summary: Quality over quantity, be specific, use examples, debate about evidence.

I think debate is an incredibly special and valuable activity despite being deeply flawed and even dangerous in some ways. If you are interested in more conversations about debate or a certain decision (you could also use this to add me to an email chain for the round if there is one), contact me at kevindkuswa at gmail dot com. It is a privilege to be judging you—I know it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment to participate in debate. At a minimum you are here and devoting your weekend to the activity—you add in travel time, research, practice and all the other aspects of preparation and you really are expressing some dedication.

So, the first issue is filling out your preference sheets. I’m usually more preferred by the kritikal or non-traditional crowd, but I would encourage other teams to think about giving me a try. I work hard to be as fair as possible in every debate, I strive to vote on well-explained arguments as articulated in the round, and my ballots have been quite balanced in close rounds on indicative ideological issues. I’m not affiliated with a particular debate team right now and may be able to judge at the NDT, so give me a try early on and then go from there.

The second issue is at the tournament—you have me as a judge and are looking for some suggestions that might help in the round. In addition to a list of things I’m about to give you, it’s good that you are taking the time to read this statement. We are about to spend over an hour talking to and with each other—you might as well try to get some insight from a document that has been written for this purpose.

1. Have some energy, care about the debate. This goes without saying for most, but enthusiasm is contagious and we’ve all put in some work to get to the debate. Most of you will probably speak as fast as you possibly can and spend a majority of your time reading things from a computer screen (which is fine—that can be done efficiently and even beautifully), but it is also possible to make equally or more compelling arguments in other ways in a five or ten minute speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVq5mugw_Y).

2. Examples win debates. Well-developed examples are necessary to make the abstract concrete, they show an understanding of the issues in the round, and they tend to control our understandings of how particular changes will play out. Good examples take many forms and might include all sorts of elements (paraphrasing, citing, narrating, quantifying, conditioning, countering, embedding, extending, etc.), but the best examples are easily applicable, supported by references and other experiences, and used to frame specific portions of the debate. I’m not sure this will be very helpful because it’s so broad, but at the very least you should be able to answer the question, “What are your examples?” For example, refer to Carville’s commencement speech to Tulane graduates in 2008…he offers the example of Abe Lincoln to make the point that “failure is the oxygen of success” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiSKPpyvMk.

3. Argument comparison wins debate. Get in there and compare evidence—debate the non-highlighted portion of cards (or the cryptic nature of their highlighting). Debate the warrants and compare them in terms of application, rationale, depth, etc. The trinity of impact, plausibility, and verge analysis doesn’t hurt, especially if those variables are weighed against one another. It’s nice to hear good explanations that follow phrases like “Even if…,” “On balance…,” or “In the context of…” I know that evidence comparison is being done at an extremely high level, but I also fear that one of the effects of paperless debate might be a tilt toward competing speech documents that feature less direct evidence comparison. Prove me wrong.

4. Debates about the relative validity of sources win rounds. Where is the evidence on both sides coming from and why are those sources better or worse? Qualification debates can make a big difference, especially because these arguments are surprisingly rare. It’s also shocking that more evidence is not used to indict other sources and effectively remove an entire card (or even argument) from consideration. The more good qualification arguments you can make, the better. Until this kind of argument is more common, I am thirsty enough for source comparisons (in many ways, this is what debate is about—evidence comparison), that I’ll add a few decimal points when it happens. I do not know exactly where my points are relative to other judges, but I would say I am along a spectrum where 27.4 is pretty good but not far from average, 27.7 is good and really contributing to the debate, 28 is very good and above average, 28.5 is outstanding and belongs in elims, and 29.1 or above is excellent for that division—could contend for one of the best speeches at the tournament.

5. All debates can still be won in 2AR. For all the speakers, that’s a corollary of the “Be gritty” mantra. Persevere, take risks and defend your choices

(https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit). The ballot is not based on record at previous tournaments, gpa, school ranking, or number of coaches.

6. Do not be afraid to go for a little more than usual in the 2NR—it might even help you avoid being repetitive. It is certainly possible to be too greedy, leaving a bloated strategy that can’t stand up to a good 2AR, but I usually think this speech leaves too much on the table.

7. Beginning in the 1AR, brand new arguments should only be in reference to new arguments in the previous speech. Admittedly this is a fuzzy line and it is up to the teams to point out brand new arguments as well as the implications. The reason I’ve decided to include a point on this is because in some cases a 2AR has been so new that I have had to serve as the filter. That is rare and involves more than just a new example or a new paraphrasing (and more than a new response to a new argument in the 2NR).

8. Very good arguments can be made without evidence being introduced in card form, but I do like good cards that are as specific and warranted as possible. Use the evidence you do introduce and do as much direct quoting of key words and phrases to enhance your evidence comparison and the validity of your argument overall.

9. CX matters. This probably deserves its own philosophy, but it is worth repeating that CX is a very important time for exposing flaws in arguments, for setting yourself up for the rebuttals, for going over strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and for generating direct clash. I do not have numbers for this or a clear definition of what it means to “win CX,” but I get the sense that the team that “wins” the four questioning periods often wins the debate.

10. I lean toward “reciprocity” arguments over “punish them because…” arguments. This is a very loose observation and there are many exceptions, but my sympathies connect more to arguments about how certain theoretical moves made by your opponent open up more avenues for you (remember to spell out what those avenues look like and how they benefit you). If there are places to make arguments about how you have been disadvantaged or harmed by your opponent’s positions (and there certainly are), those discussions are most compelling when contextualized, linked to larger issues in the debate, and fully justified.

Overall, enjoy yourself—remember to learn things when you can and that competition is usually better as a means than as an ends.

And, finally, the third big issue is post-round. Usually I will not call for many cards—it will help your cause to point out which cards are most significant in the rebuttals (and explain why). I will try to provide a few suggestions for future rounds if there is enough time. Feel free to ask questions as well. In terms of a long-term request, I have two favors to ask. First, give back to the activity when you can. Judging high school debates and helping local programs is the way the community sustains itself and grows—every little bit helps. Whether you realize it or not, you are a very qualified judge for all the debate events at high school tournaments. Second, consider going into teaching. If you enjoy debate at all, then bringing some of the skills of advocacy, the passion of thinking hard about issues, or the ability to apply strategy to argumentation, might make teaching a great calling for you and for your future students (https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic note: debaters are definitely part of academia, but represent a group than can engage in Emdin’s terms). There are lots of good paths to pursue, but teaching is one where debaters excel and often find fulfilling. Best of luck along the ways.

Founding Board Member, WUDL (Washington Urban Debate League), 2013-current; former travel policy debate coach at Thomas Jefferson (VA), 2014-19. Debated nationally in HS and at Harvard (1990 NDT champion and Copeland Award winner) before starting a foreign policy career, including a stint in the State Department, earning a Ph.D., and have run the Washington Quarterly journal (you've probably cut or read a bunch of foreign policy cards from it) since 1998 as my full-time job.

I judged about 50+ rounds a year (now maybe 20 in WUDL), but don't teach at summer camps so better to explain topic args early in a year. In the spirit of David Letterman and Zbigniew Brzezinski (and ask a coach if you don't know who they are), here's a top 10 list of things you should know about me, or about what I believe makes you a better debater with me, as your judge:

10. I don't read speech docs along with you while you are speaking (except to check clipping); I use them as reference docs.

If I don't understand you, and it's not on my flow, it didn't happen. This is a speaking activity. Speed is fine, and I'll say "clear" if you're not.

9. Better debaters structure their speech (use #s) and label each new piece of paper (including 1AC advs) before starting to read tags/cites.

Ever listen to Obama speak? It's structured. Structuring your speech conveys the important points and controls the judges' flow (don't use "and" as that word is used in cards ALL the time). The best debaters explain arguments to the judge; they don't obscure arguments to hide them from the other team. Points will reflect that.

8. I generally prefer Affs to have plans as examples of the resolution.

I am indebted to the activity for opening my eyes over the years to the depths of racial tensions and frustration in this country, particularly among today's students, and constantly learn about them from coaches and students running these arguments well. All that said, I do intuitively believe the resolution divides ground and is vital for the long-term viability of this activity (aka I will vote on framework, but neg has to do more than say "you know old school policy debate is valuable...you did it").

7. Portable skills (including switch-side benefits) are real, and will pay off over 1-2 generations when you are trained and in charge.

What you do in this room can help train you to improve government (from inside or outside) even if it takes patience (think a generation). I am an example of that and know literally dozens of others. The argument that nothing happens because the aff doesn't actually get adopted overlooks the activity's educational value and generally feeds the stereotype that this generation demands instant gratification and can't think over the horizon. It's a process; so is progress.

I also intuitively believe teams shouldn't get the right to run an argument on both sides of the topic. The best way to challenge and sharpen your beliefs is to have to argue against them.

6. I'm not a good postmodernist/high theory judge (this includes psychoanalysis).

5. I am more likely to vote on conditionality if there are strategic contradictions.

4. Top debaters use source quals to compare evidence.

Debaters make arguments and use cards--cards don't make arguments themselves. Cards effectively serve as expert testimony, when the author knows more about the subject than you, so use the author's quals as a means of weighing competing evidence.

3. Permutations should be combinations of the whole plan and part or all of the CP or alt to test whether the CP or K is a reason to reject the Aff (aka competitive).

I've found permutation theory often painfully poorly debated with the neg block often relying on trying to outspread the 1ar not to go for perms in HS. Perms are not inherently illegitimate moving targets. Conversely, don't assume I know what "permute: do the CP" means; I find debaters rarely do. MAKE SURE THE TEXT OF A PERM IS CLEAR (careful when reading a bunch at top speed and text should be written in your speech doc for reference and is binding).

POTENTIAL UNCOMMON VIEW: I believe affs have the right to claim to adopt permutations as the option the judge is voting for (the neg introduced the CP/alt into the debate so it's not a moving target) to solve a DA and can offset the moral hazard that "you can't straight turn a CP so why not run one/more", but this must be set up in the 1ar and preferably 2ac.

Finally, I will resort to judge-kicking the CP or K if nobody tells me what to do, but somebody (before the 2ar) should.

2. Good Ks have good alts

At its core, policy debate is about training your generation to make a better world. That means plans and alts are the key to progress. I prefer not to hear generic Ks with either nihilistic (burn it down, refusal, reject the Aff) or utopian (Ivory Tower) alts. But show me a K with an alt that might make a difference? Particularly with a link to the Aff (plan specifically or as example of resolution) rather than the world? NOW we’re talkin’ ...

1. The most important thing: I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.

If you win a debate on the flow, I will vote for it. Seriously. All the above are leanings, absent what debaters in the room tell me to do or what I tend to do in evenly-matched, closely contested debates. But you should do what you do best, and I will vote for the team that debates the round best. You are not here to entertain me, I am here to evaluate and, when I can, teach you.

I save this for last (#1) because it supersedes all the others.

PROCEDURAL NOTE: If you're not using an e-mail chain, prep time ends when your flash drive LEAVES your computer (or if you are on an email chain, when you save the doc) -- before that, you are compiling your speech doc and that's your prep time. I tend to get impatient if there's too much dead/failed tech time in debates.

This is a working philosophy, which I'll update periodically, so please feel free to ask me any questions and if I hear the same one/s a couple times, I'll be happy to update this.

I came back because I believe policy debate was invaluable in my education, loved the competition, learned from and started a career based on the research I did and heard (and still do learn from it and you to this day), and want to create opportunities for others to benefit from competing in policy debate. I owe my career to this activity, and other members of my family have benefited from it in many ways too. I'll do my best to make each round fun and worthwhile.

Compete, make each other better, and have fun. There's no better intellectual game. Enjoy...Let's do this...

I don't have a public judge philosophy because this website is not secure. Nothing has otherwise changed, I will try to be as fair as possible and I am open to persuasion on most things. Email me if you have questions.

Affiliation: College- Wake Forest '17, '19 High School- New Trier '13

Please add me to your email chains: jmichaelmanchester [@] gmail.com

This used to be a super long explanation of how I felt about debate, but given how little utility that has for many of you before a debate, here's the short version:

"I never was the smartest debater and I never will be, which means please do not make assumptions about argument understanding. Something could honestly just be over my head, this having happened multiple times in my debate career as a debater."- Lee Quinn hit the nail on the head. Don't assume that I'll know the in's and out's of your argument to the degree that you do. Regardless of argument type, explanation that contains an argument, claim, and warrant is essential.

Top shelf things for everyone:
Clarity- To quote the definition Jarrod Atchison has already beaten into my head: "Speed is the number ideas effectively communicated to the judge that the other team is held accountable to respond to." Slowing down on analytics and differentiating the tag from the rest of the card is a must.

Speaks- make fun of Duke and you'll be in a good place.

People on the right:
Do what you do well. Regardless of what you end up going for make sure you've got the "story" of your argument on lock. How does the aff's change from the squo cause the impact to the DA to be triggered? What affs are included under your interpretation of the topic? These narratives can be easily established in the overview of your DA/CP/T violation and go a long way in making sure I understand your argument as well as you want me to.


I tend to lean aff on most theory issues, though on most questions it isn't too far in the aff's direction (the exception to this is conditionality, I'm definitely in the you get one conditional option camp- that being said most people are bad at going for conditionality so that hasn't translated to any aff ballots on condo in front of me).


People on the left:
Do what you do well. I'll forefront that I'm not nearly as deep in the literature to the left as I am with the right but that doesn't mean I won't be interested in your arguments.

I think you probably should have some relation to the topic, whether that requires defending a normative action be taken by the state or simply discussing the implications of certain aspects of the topic is up for debate. If you're debating FW the question of reformism necessary v. unnecessary is super important.

If you're going for a K win framework and be good to go- though you should know I'll be inclined to let the aff weigh the 1AC if they put up a decent fight on FW.

Read links with clear impacts- just reading a wall of cards that says "the aff does the thing we are k-ing" without explaining how the interacts with the larger questions the alt/impact are getting at isn't super useful.

Wake Forest '21 '23

College email chain: debatedocs, wfudbt@gmail.com

HS email chain: alexmarban99@gmail.com

Evidence quality and execution matter, however, I will default to the debater's explanation of evidence and their spin. Judge instruction is paramount, I defer to the team who has better instructed me on how to evaluate the debate. I read less evidence when deciding unless it's close or there's disagreement over what a card says so spend time making the evidence you've read matter.

You should explain not only why your offense matters but also how it complicates the other side's offense. I care a lot about turns case and case turns DA/K/etc arguments, if only one side has these it'll likely tip the scales in their favor.

Defend your justifications and conclusions, I dislike when teams shy away from clash by not defending core premises of their arguments.

Cross-ex (not cross....) is my favorite speech in debate, use it to your advantage rather than wasting it on flow check questions and integrate relevant moments into your speeches!

Inserting evidence is fine if a complete argument is made and the rehighlighting comes from the other team's card, if it includes other portions not originally read then read it.

Framework

Interpretations establish the model of debate you are advocating so be cognizant and intentional of what you are forwarding. AFFs should have a model of debate with a role for the negative and a vision for what debates look like under their model, instead of solely impact turns. AFFs that solely go for an impact turn with no counter interp need to control the question of ballot solvency like how voting AFF resolves that offense.

Clash and fairness are the most persuasive NEG impacts.

Kritiks

Specificity and engagement for both sides are crucial.

Generally, I would prefer you spend more time on the link, impact, and alt instead of framework. If you want framework to matter resolve arguments thoroughly. Explain the implication of winning your framework and how that should change the way I evaluate other parts of the flow.

Theory

Conditionality is generally good but it can be egregious with multiple conditional planks, amending stuff, counterplanning out of straight turns, etc. 3+ is pushing it for me. Abuse stories should be present in the 1AR, if you are planning on going for it in the 2AR.

I'd prefer teams to say judge kick or object to it.

Topicality

Predictability matters and guides how pre-season research is conducted, evidence with intent to define and exclude usually provides the best interpretations.

Case lists and a vision for the topic should be explained on both sides.

Counterplans

Topic literature guides counterplan legitimacy, if a well-prepared 2A could reasonably expect the counterplan it is probably fine. Specific advocates are important, but given the lack of specific AFF advocates the NEG has a bit more leeway.

Not a fan of multiple plank counterplans without advocates that have no reason they solve the AFF in the 1NC. Once the block explains how they solve or reads cards that advocate the planks, the 1AR gets new responses.

Disads

Make diverse link and turns case arguments, preferably with cards. The nukes topic lends itself to strong comparative evidence, but you must draw out those comparisons when extending evidence in later speeches. Having external offense is ideal.

Case

Unfortunately, debating the case is an underdeveloped skill. Most internal links, solvency, and impacts are terrible, take some time to point out those flaws with evidence and analytics.

LD Notes

Most of the above should apply, please note that I've exclusively only done policy debate so that will filter the way I view and evaluate arguments. I have not done any research on the LD topic.

At the end of most LD debates, I am left with a lack of thorough impact calculus so it would benefit you to do more of that in your final speeches.

I'm very unlikely to vote on tricks, RVIs, etc. The closer your arguments resemble policy-style arguments, the better judge I will be for you.

Current Debate Coach at Caddo Magnet HS

LHSSL Executive Secretary

email: Kasi.mccartney@gmail.com

Please show up on time. Have email chains, stands and other needs set up before the start time of the round.

I generally look to the fastest and easiest way to resolve the debate. In order to win you should make clear impact calculus throughout the debate and provide a specific path for round resolution in the 2NR/2AR. First tell me how you win the round, then tell me why even if I buy into some of the other team's arguments you should still win. This is how you win my ballot.

I default to a policy maker framework. I will vote for non-policy strategies but they MUST present a clean structure for their impacts. I prefer the affirmative to have a plan text. I do not consider myself an activist or that my role is to balance forces within the debate community.

Identity Politics - You should probably not pref me. You MUST have a link to the aff or specific in round actions for me to vote on this. I understand and sympathize with the issues in round, but this is not my preferred argument. It will take a lot of convincing to get me to vote on a strategy that is outside the resolutional bounds. I ultimately believe that traditional forms of debate have value.

Theory – I think theory is definitely a voting issue, but there needs to be some form of in round abuse for me to truly buy that it is a reason alone to reject one team or the other. I do not think that simply kicking a CP in block is a time skew that is truly worth voting against a neg team unless there are other circumstances. I don't like CP's with lots of planks. I think that it makes the debate too messy.

Case - I must say I have a hard time being persuaded that the negative has enough weight on their side to win with only case defense and a DA. What can I say, I'm a product of the late 90's. I much prefer to have a CP/K in there to give the flexibility, especially with a topic that allows for affirmatives to have heavy military impacts. Please be careful and make sure that if you takea case only route that you attack each advantage with offense and have a very very weighty DA on your side.

Kritiks- Not my bread and butter, although I do understand their strategic benefit, having come from an underfunded public school. It is my preference that K’s have a clear order and structure. I will vote on the K if you win that your impacts outweigh the impacts of the plan and that there is a true need for action, but I would not be the judge to introduce an extremely loose and unstructured argument to. I understand and buy into threat construction and realism claims, but in the end, I much prefer a well executed CP and politics debate to a poorly executed critical strategy. You will need to a have link specific to the plan. Links based off of the SQ will not be enough for me.

Framework - I default to the framework that the aff can weight the impacts of their plan versus the impacts of the neg.

Impacts – I believe that impact analysis is at the heart of a judging decision. You are an advocate for your arguments and as such you should provide insight and analysis as to why your specific impacts are the greatest in the round, how they should be evaluated by the judge and how they change the evaluation of the impacts to the other team’s case. Without this assessment I feel like you leave too much wiggle room for the judge to pick their personal preference of impact.

T - normally I like T. I default to competing interpretations. I think CX checks for ASPEC. I dont buy RVI's. I like for there to be a robust discussion of specific ground loss and the impact that it would have on debate as a whole.

Speaker points- Speed can be an advantage in the round and should be encouraged, but always with the intent of being clear first. My ability to clearly understand your arguments is crucial to getting them evaluated at the end of the round. The ability to provide analytics and analysis in the round will get you much further with me. As far as CX is concerned, I simply ask that the person who is supposed to be asking/answering the questions, gets the first shot at speaking. If they ask for help that’s perfectly fine, but don’t overwhelm your partner’s ability to conduct their own cx. Baseline speaks for me is 28.5 and you move up or down from there. I hardly ever give above a 29.5

Benjamin Morbeck

Updated 9-11-2023

I debated 4 years at the University of Rochester (NY) and 2 years at Strath Haven High School (PA).

Add me to the email chain: benmo28@gmail.com

As a debater and a coach, I lived pretty exclusively on the policy side of things. I think my judging history suggests I am an even worse judge for the critique and critical affirmatives than I thought I would be.

I haven't been particularly involved in debate since I graduated; I now work full-time outside of debate (I'm a geologist with the US Geological Survey in California) and that is even more true.

I evaluate the round probabilistically -- comparing the risk that each team accesses their impacts, regardless of whether it is a DA, K or T debate. Good defense is often as important as offense in my decisions, but there is very infrequently "zero risk".

I very rarely dealt with theory and (non-framework) topicality as a debater. I think there are very few situations where negatives would be better served by going for topicality instead of a DA/CP strategy in front of me, and vice versa few situations where you are better off going for theory/condo to answer that nasty counterplan instead of just making solvency deficits or putting offense against the net benefits.

Judge kick makes intuitive sense to me and I'm happy to do it for you, but you need to tell me to do it in the 2NR.

Evidence quality is very important to me. I like to read a lot of evidence as the debate is going on NOT because I like to needlessly intervene but because I think that it makes my decisions more informed. You should use this to your favor by (a) reading good evidence and (b) comparing evidence to impact how I view the evidence that has been read. This also means I am hesitant to vote on, for example, disad stories that are contrived and supported mainly by "spin." If you don't have a single card that describes all of your disad story, I'm probably not interested (though I have a bit of a soft spot for the old school PC-style Agenda DA).

This (hopefully) should only apply to high school debates, but I have a very low tolerance for non-substantive, "trolly" arguments in policy rounds---things like ASPEC, frivolous T arguments, one card or backfile critiques, or even very generic impact turns (e.g. spark). My threshold for affs answering these is incredibly low.

LD specific:

My background is in college and high school policy. I judge LD occasionally but am not familiar with the intricacies of circuit LD. If you read plans/DAs, I'll be a good judge for you. If you are a more traditional/old school LD debater, I'll be able to keep up. Otherwise, you probably don't want me judging your LD round.

I don't think I would ever vote on a theory argument in LD. Generic impact framing arguments (e.g. 'the util debate') don't matter much to me.

I'm not going to look at any analytics you email out. I'll only check the document to look at your evidence. If you are going so fast that I don't hear your analytic arguments with my own ears, then those args aren't going to be on my flow. Sorry. Speed is good, but you need to be comprehensible.

Nic D Murphy

The N in Rutgers MN

2017 Crowns United!

navenicole5@gmail.com

First, Energy is essential to me. Everyone must be respectful of the speaker and the participants in the round.

Background-I debated for the St.Louis Urban debate league in high school in college. After that, I debated for Rutgers University Newark. I'm the first Black Woman to win the NDT and Unite the Crowns. I debated primarily in the D3, which means I know the actual structure of argumentation.

Traditional Policy Debate Proper
Speed-Do you, I'm here to support all styles and genres!

T- This is probably one of my favorite arguments in debate, the idea that I can be so petty to review a word or process makes me so happy! The pettier, the better!

DA's-Literally the first negative argument i learned in debate I love Enviorments and Climate change impacts anything with EV and mobility is also interesting to me. Politics obviously should be unique and have solid impacts!

CP's-I believe in condo also the states arent terrible...

K's,K Affs- I love learning new things! Teach me something i DON'T KNOW! I would love to hear the latest authors and see some creativity I find myself bored by some of the K debate thats been happening and think the style is declining and policy is just as entertaining at this point but thats just my take... Who am I ?

K Aff's VS Framework
Beat the procedural and win your impacts, I believe framework is one of the easiest arguments a K Aff can answer but also one of the hardest if your aff doesnt actually do anthing. Make it make sense

LD,PF,Big Questions

I know what's going on and the rules/format of your styles of debate; I have coached students in these formats as well. Remember, you are not in a policy debate. Do not adapt to me... Follow the norms of your event.

Oakland University - PhD Applied Mathematics (2017)

U of M - Dearborn - BSE Computer Engineering & Engineering Mathematics (2011)

I debated for Groves High School for two years, U of M - Dearborn for one year, and I debated for U of M - Ann Arbor for one year. I have been coaching at Groves High School since August 2007, where I am currently Co-Director of Debate.

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

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. There needs to be specific explanations of your standards and why they are better than the aff's or vice versa. Why does one standard give a better internal link to education or fairness than another, etc?

CPs: I am willing to listen to any type of CP and multiple counterplans in the same round. I also try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. The overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: Sure. I enjoy a good kritik debate. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff. This may include reading new link scenarios in the block. There should also be a clear explanation of the impact with specific impact analysis. Spend some time on the alternative debate. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the world of the alternative look like? And finally, who does the alternative? What is my role as the judge? The neg should also isolate a clear f/w - why does methodology, ontology, reps, discourse, etc. come first?

Theory: I don't lean any particular way on the theory debate. For me, a theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Finally, there should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am certainly willing to listen to your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

You should read rehighlightings.

Don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications.

Have fun!

From the beginning, I think debaters need to understand that I was never a policy debater myself. I took over a successful team at Caddo when they needed faculty support, and the debaters and alums taught me the activity. Over the next fifteen years I learned enough to teach it to novices and intermediates. I judged actively for about fifteen years, but since bringing a new coach to our school seven years ago, I have not been in many rounds. If you want someone who is going to understand clipped references to acronyms or core camp affs that you think everyone already knows on the NATO topic, I am not that guy. You are going to have to break things down and explain. I am a flow judge, but very rusty.

Now, Caddo has been known as a fairly critical team over the last decade, and I have learned to appreciate those arguments a good bit. As someone who teaches sociology, psychology, and philosophy at my high school, I am sympathetic to many identity arguments, critiques of epistemology, etc. However, I am not going to be down with a lot of jargon-filled blocks on framework—you must explain why I should weigh your project or method against fairness arguments of the policy world. I like the kind of literature discussed in critical rounds, but I have voted for policy affs outweighing a critique in different debates, especially where the aff won the framework and the neg did not.

That being said, I am very comfortable listening to case, disad, counterplan rounds. I think topicality sets important rules of the game & so if you plan to flout those rules, you better have a compelling reason. I certainly value the kind of knowledge and skills that policy debaters learn through the activity.

Ethos matters. We all know how important cross-ex is to establishing a confident position, but don’t be rude. If you can have a really competitive round and still treat your opponent—and your partner!—with respect, then that goes a long way with me on speaker points.

Email chain—yes. nnormand.cmhs@gmail.com

I am not a proficient enough typist to flow on the laptop, but if you signpost your arguments well enough, I should be able to flow a debate at speed. Being able to read the evidence during the speech certainly helps me though.

Do what you do best in front of me, give full explanations of why I should vote for you, and you will be ok. Make blippy arguments that claim you won because of something that was barely in the debate and dropped by the other team—then no matter how pissed you act when “post-rounding” me at the end, you will still have lost.

This is a great activity. Have fun with it & don’t take yourself too seriously, then we all win.

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

Nate Nys
Affiliations: Blake and Wake Forest

Yes, I want to be on your email chain: nate.nys@gmail.com

Quick update for the Wake High School Tournament:

I haven't been as involved with debate recently so please explain any acronyms or other specifics related to the resolution. I did very little topic research so it is very important for you to give me context throughout the round.

I am no longer as adept at evaluating policy vs policy and theory debates. My lack of topic knowledge and lack of time spent flowing these debates makes me uncomfortable judging them. This does NOT mean that I am biased against policy or theory-based arguments - just that your level of explanation needs to be much higher for me to have an understanding of what's going on.

General Information (useful if you're checking this 5 minutes before the round starts)

- I'm relatively apathetic to styles of argumentation within debate. You should not be dissuaded from a particular strategy because I'm judging.

- Yes, I'll listen to aff's that don't defend the hypothetical enactment of a federal policy. I will also listen to some variation of a topicality argument in response to such aff's.

- Debate is a game, you should play to win. I'm not terribly invested in how you accomplish that goal.

- I've predominantly debated critical arguments, however, I do have a strong background in policy v. You shouldn't pref me because you think I'm an automatic ballot on the K.

How I View Debate

I see policy debate as a game and approach it as such. I believe both teams want to win a ballot and will attempt to do so through varying argumentative strategies. I have very little interest in taking strong ideological positions on the functionality of debate and the strategies employed within the activity. Debate presents a unique opportunity to adopt and defend a myriad of positions with varying epistemological backgrounds against an opponent who has a strategic incentive to argue against you. If your arguments meet my admittedly subjective understanding of what "strategic" means, then you're far more likely to win than an opponent who hasn't engaged with the core argumentative tenants within the round.

Critical vs Policy

In my opinion, this subjective divide is bad and contributes to large amounts of dogmatism on both sides of the binary. Critical theory, political science, identity studies, environmental issues, and a litany of other theoretical positions all hold at least some relevance to the world. As such, the exclusion or prioritization of any of these lenses is against what I believe to be "good" debate. If you're defending a position that requires a federal policy be implemented, then actually defend your theory. "Extinction is bad" is a very persuasive argument under that theoretical frame and should be advanced through the debate. Yes, engaging with an opponent's theoretical frame of the world is necessary, however, having offense is exceptionally important and should be prioritized before engaging with the micro-details of an opponent's theory.

Strategy

I'm ambivalent toward what you want to read in debate, whether that's a multi-planked process counterplan, an identity-centered performance, or a DA with seven internal links. It should go without saying that large blocks of topicality, counterplan, and kritik extensions should be communicated in a way that I can flow. Although I don't have many opinions set-in-stone, I would say theory is a slightly uphill battle when I'm judging, mostly because I see it as an aversion to the substance of the debate itself. Substantive theory debates are obviously more persuasive and easier to vote on.

Other Things

- Speaker points and speech lengths aren't up to the debaters.

- Zero risk is possible and presumption is under-utilized.

- I appreciate intense debating where I can see everyone in the round has a vested interest in winning the debate.

- CX is supremely important. I appreciate when debaters make their opponents look incompetent. This does not mean you can/should be a horrible person.

Varun Reddy

Wake Forest University 15-19

Westwood High School

Since writing this, I have experimented with debating both kritikal and policy arguments as well as combinations of both. I will do my best to judge whatever arguments you choose to deploy to the best of my ability.

T

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise specified. The standard on T is limits and I will filter much the 2AC as well as the 2NC explanation of the violation through this guiding frame. When going for Topicality in front of me, it would help to treat the argument like a disad in terms of ordering.

CPs

Explain why the counter-plan solves at least some or all of the aff that is important. Aff needs solvency deficits and theory arguments to defeat the CP. Criticizing the process of the CP and the logic of a net-benefit is also welcome.

K

Good k debates are won with specific micro level impacting at the link level and alternative defenses. I am highly persuaded by an aff team that spends a good time on the permutation and fights some of the link arguments. Similarly, a negative team with good framework arguments about why I should not weigh the aff are compelling as well. As far as strategy, 2ACs should have 1. perm 2. link turn/ no-link 3. alt solvency deficit 4. theory argument 4. impact turn/no impact. 2NCs should have the following 1. impact overview 2. framework argument 3. alt explanation 4. link debate

FW

Negative, Have a competing interps argument. Explain why the form of the affirmative is more important than the content in terms of debatability. Secondly, have strong explanations for why limits and jurisdictional constraints on debate are important for preserving the predictability and debatibility of the topic.

DA

Good Disad debates are good. I am of the opinion the politics disad are maybe suspect in the conjunction of link and internal link chains and an aff team that is good on this question may be persuasive. Justifications for probability, magnitude, and time frame can really make or break alot of these close debates and I think spelling out the direction of the link debate for me is good as well.

Concluding Notes (Must Read :P)

Debate is TOO serious sometimes. Be a fierce competitor and come to win but also don't lose sight of the subtleties in debate that make it fun. Enjoy yourself. Believe in the process and good things will come. Otherwise, good luck!

Pine Crest School '18

Duke University '22

Put me on the email chain please: rubensteinjack77@gmail.com

Quick thoughts:

-Can’t flow what I can’t understand

-Debate the case, 2A’s really sometimes don’t know how to defend their own aff’s at the slightest pushback (if you are aff, please don’t be one of these teams)

-I don’t know much about the topic, so don’t expect me to be well-versed on the intricacies of most of your arguments, especially T.

-Make it clear which arguments are important in the debate. You may not get the decision you want if the 2NR/2AR are just a collection of equally emphasized arguments.

-I will obviously read evidence.

-Conditionality is probably good, but that doesn’t mean you should read 5 conditional advocacies. If you make conditionality bad arguments, contextualizing them to the round will be more persuasive than potential abuse styled arguments.

-Evidence comparison is important and would be appreciated.

-The affirmative should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan by the United States Federal Government. Fairness is an impact, and a good one. I find that a TVA or “Do it on the Neg” will usually mitigate most aff offense in T-USFG/Framework debates.

Affirmatives: I love a really good affirmative. Having a really good one means all parts of it are backed by sound evidence, especially your internal links. You give me very little reason to care about a U.S.-China War, for example, if your impact card is a two sentence, terribly highlighted card from some random blog.

Counterplans: I will never vote against a CP on face just because it is a Process CP, Consult CP, etc. However, an aff team who invests in nuanced theory arguments can persuade me to reject these types of CP’s. Same goes for “Perm do the CP” against these types of questionably competitive CP’s. The more specific a CP is, the more legitimate it tends to be in my mind, and the more effective it will likely be in mitigating aff offense. Invest time in your net benefit: it can outweigh the aff case even if the aff team wins a solvency deficit. Planks shouldn’t all be conditional if you have a 12 plank CP.

Disads: Read a link in the 1NC. You will not get the speaker points you are hoping for if the 1NC is 9 off, and 4 DA’s without evidence-based links. Have well-developed “DA turns case” arguments. Aff team please don’t ignore these arguments; they can be very persuasive when it comes time to make a decision.

Topicality: I tend to side towards reasonability based arguments, especially when teams just spread through their blocks on this question. If you actually substantively debate this issue, however, I could easily see myself using a lens of competing interpretations. T arguments against affs that are generally accepted as core of the topic will struggle to find much offense and won’t be very persuasive. Again, I have limited knowledge of the topic, so I will be playing catch up here, but don’t let that stop you from going for it if T is your thing. I’ll happily vote for a well-developed T argument.

Critiques: I am probably not the best judge for Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, etc., but I’m here for anything else. Unless one team really messes up, I find that framework/ROB debates end up being pretty meaningless. I will likely weigh the K versus the Aff, which means both teams should be doing considerable impact work. Good K debates always have well-impacted out links. Explain how the alt would function, and how it interacts with the affirmative case. Many teams fail to do this, and I have little interest in voting for a non-unique DA.

I hate judges who are on facebook or gchat and don’t pay attention to CX, or any other part of the debate. You have 100 percent of my attention, so use it.

First of all +1 for actually reading judging paradigms. You've already started off well.

Add me to the email chain: devon.debate@gmail.com

Experience: I debated for three years in high school at Baltimore City College and now I'm one of their coaches. This is my fifth year judging HS debate.

Paradigm: Just a general overview of how I judge debates: I'm fine with spreading as long as you are clear enough. I will listen to almost anything and as long as it's argued well. A dropped argument is a true argument (within reason). I like competitive spirit but don't be a terrible person. By that I mean you can get fiery in your speeches and cross-ex but personal attacks are not cool unless they are really out of line (i.e. they said something outright offensive: racist, sexist, patriarchal, heteronormative,etc.). I want to see a good debate so run what you're comfortable with and know what you're talking about please.

Specifics: Now I'll talk about a few things that are more specific to argumentative style and my own preferences.

DISCLAIMER: Everything beyond this point is my point of view so you should take it with a grain of salt. I'll always judge a debate based on what happens in the round not based on how I feel about the arguments ran. However I will tell you how I felt after the round.

K: I primarily debated kritically during my debating career so that is naturally what I prefer to hear and I know more about. If you run a K, you can trust that I'll probably have a good idea of what you're talking about unless you are running something really obscure.

I read a lot of Deleuze and Foucault myself so I have a higher threshold for these arguments. I really hate generic answers to these arguments...but they can win the debate if they aren't answered well.

Race, so this is an interesting subject. I have read some of the literature behind most classic race arguments and my team has read(or is currently reading) most of the better kritical race theory arguments so I am used to hearing them and I understand them very well. Thus likewise, I expect them to be run well or you are already starting off from behind in my book. If you are an all white partnership, be careful what you say. I'm not going to vote you down for being wrong but being offensive can affect speaker points. So I will listen, just don't say anything that will make me regret that.

Policy: I wouldn't say that straight up policy is something that I love listening to but I will listen to it. Keep it clean. Keep it understandable. Otherwise I have no issues.

T: I really dislike this argument in 99% of situations. If the other team answers it reasonably I will not vote on it. Read something responsive. T is not responsive. If you plan on winning T it better be the whole 2NR or else I'll give the 2AR a lot of leeway on it unless the 1AR just straight dropped it, but you still need an impact. T alone is not a voter. Also if you go for T, especially against a K Aff there damn sure better be some real impacts. I mean real world impacts. Weighing your "education" against systemic issues is not going to be an easy debate to win in front of me.

Theory: I have nothing for or against theory. Be articulate and make sure I understand all the parts of your argument and why what they're doing is bad.

At the end of the day when I'm judging I really just want to see a good debate so if you give me that you can be sure that I will judge it fairly and unbiased.

I’m now a senior debater at Wake Forest University.

K debate (affs and neg kritiks)- I ran gender arguments sophomore and junior year at Wake and am relatively well versed in high theory. Straight up- I like K debate and see it as very competitive, if done well. I am open to discourse K’s as I do believe that discourse and framing can positively change a way a political issue is viewed. You should do very specific link work and explain why the aff demonstrates the problems your K identifies. I need very explicit impact calculus combined with how the alt solves these impacts in the 2nr to consider voting on the K.

Framework- I value loss of in-depth, topic specific education over loss of fairness claims. Fairness claims? C'mon y'all. No. I also think the neg should tell me not just that they lost ground but what ground they actually lost i.e. SPECIFIC counterplans, disads, etc. and the importance of being able to read them. Give a coherent explanation of topical versions of the aff under your framework. If you’re reading framework against a critical or “new debate” aff, I’d also suggest presumption in the 1nc and combining it with part of framework as the debate progresses. I have found this really effective.

DA’s- Yes, definitely. You should have a topic-specific link. I’m very familiar with the politics DA, but you still need to have a clear internal link chain and impact calc at the top of the flow to make me weigh it against the aff.

CP’s- For sure. Your net benefit(s) need to be clear from the 1nc.

Theory- I have a high threshold for condo abuse unless you read 5-7 off through the block. I’ve been a 2a for the past 3 years and sympathize with 2ac strat skew/time allocation impacts education arguments. Also, it’s better to have 2-3 solid off’s that you can spend more time explaining. I’d prefer not to watch a condo debate, but will vote accordingly based on how the round transpires.

Speaker Points:

I generally try to award higher speaks if I can. However there are a few things I will always dock speaker points for (in no particular order) and the amount of points I dock will be based on how severe the issue is:

Rascist comments

Sexism

Misgendering

Holocaust trivialization (no, there is no such thing as a "nuclear Holocaust")

PRONOUNS: they/them/theirs

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

PhD student @ Stanford, in Modern Thought and Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not, in fact, your CX.

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

I debated in LD for five seasons of middle/high school (2011-2015), and Policy at Wake Forest University four seasons (2015-2019). I also have a master's degree in World History at Northeastern University and am pursuing a PhD in World History at Northeastern; my research interests concern the Left in the US and UK during the twentieth century, particularly the 1960s.

I have strong knowledge of every style of argument, which reflects the versatility that I had as a debater and now a coach. I am absolutely okay with any level of speed, but I'm at the point where I think you'll sound more intelligent if you don't need to rely on debate jargon to make good arguments. Basically, I would lower your speaker points if you're doing analysis that would sound completely unintelligible to someone outside of debate, not just a layperson but even an accomplished academic. So instead of just saying, "the disad controls the internal link, any risk of offense means it's try or die" and moving on because I should get that, please talk about the substance of the real-world issues you're addressing like you've written a paper or had a conversation with a non-debater. You should still use debate terminology when it's obviously important (like if something's a perm, or a case turn, you should say that).

I will generally prioritize dropped arguments, but I still think weighing is important. So, the one exit strategy that I would give a debater who dropped something crucial is for them to explain why the arguments they're still winning outweigh the argument they dropped. This means it's necessary for someone extending a dropped argument to explain why that argument alone merits them winning the debate - no one should win just because of a tally showing that one debater dropped fewer arguments than the other.

I will not mind seeing a card doc after the debate, but I'm not going to decide the debate based on my views about your cards. I think the way I evaluate debates now is so much more about how you're talking about the cards and less about whether I independently judge that your cards are better than your opponent's cards. So if someone's evidence is really bad, you have to tell me that it is, and why - when I look at the card doc, I may feel confident that you were right in that assessment, but if your opponent doesn't have a good comeback I won't intervene and say "actually this card was awesome."

Note about LD theory/T: Read theory or T if it's making a reasonable point about a squirrely aff or a patently unfair practice. In that sense I default to reasonability, not in terms of intervention but rather my gut feeling that you have to meet a high bar for proving your opponent rigged the game. It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.

I am absolutely okay with non-traditional debate styles, but I believe that you should adopt a concrete political project (could be grassroots and decentralized, cultural/artistic, educational, etc.), or explain why you shouldn't have one at all (full pessimism). I don't think you can be half-in, half-out by talking about structures yet claiming that only the traditional Policy debater is naive about real-world change because they're using fiat/roleplaying. If you say "debate is meaningless, fiat is illusory, nothing we say or do at this tournament matters," I'll roll my eyes because (1) that applies to the K also, because you also spend your time doing debate, and (2) everything we talk about in debate, even hypothetical policies, has the chance to influence how we engage with the world once debate is no longer our entire lives. Whether or not fiat is real, I still think you either need to make a normative claim about how other people--not just debaters--should act, or you have to be radically anti-normative (no demands, no future, no change is possible). I personally think it's vapid to just have debates about debate, and given the real-world impacts that people face I think that you either need to expand your vision to the world or explain why the world is irredeemable. In other words, I think that good Left thinking is optimistic unless you systematically justify your pessimism.

I'm a graduate student and coach at the University of Pittsburgh studying Communication and Rhetoric. My research focuses on reactionary digital subcultures. I debated at Wake Forest (2015-2019, 1x NDT octofinalist, 1x CEDA octofinalist) and at Princess Anne High School in Virginia (2011-2015). 9 times out of 10, I was a 2N/1A reading non-traditional affs and going for the K, and I liked to read Marxism, cybernetics, psychoanalysis, Virilio, among others. My experience as a debater and coach is 99% in the policy format.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Ask me for my email before the round.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. Do not run from an argument. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

I enjoy judging any and all debates across the purported ideological spectrum, but traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in these debates and adjust accordingly, preferably by emphasizing depth over breadth. On the opposite side of the coin, K teams (and especially Marxist teams) who take me and expect an instant win will likely be disappointed by the outcome.

Written paradigms can only describe how a judge aspires to evaluate debates, not necessarily how they will actually evaluate your debate.

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. The technical play of the game determines the parameters of "truth" through which I evaluate the debate, but I hold myself to the same standards of basic pedagogical responsibility that I would hold in the classroom.

A complete argument consists of a claim, warrant, and evidence. Absent a clear extension of all three parts, I will not feel comfortable voting on the argument in question. Furthermore, arguments are not reducible to the evidence used to substantiate them. My evaluation of carded evidence starts from the analysis of the evidence given to me by the debaters, not my own reading of the cards.

I think that affirmatives should present and defend an inherent advocacy that solves a significant harm. I also think that affirmatives should be topical, but this does not necessarily require a defense of instrumental fiat. A 2NR that demonstrates that the affirmative has not met these burdens is likely to get my ballot. In other words: I am not the judge for five McGowan cards with a topic link.

You should be explicit about the model of competition that you are employing, especially (though not exclusively) if you know that your opponent assumes a different model. Framework arguments are useful for signaling me to give weight to your strongest arguments over your weakest ones. Please do not collapse the complicated and necessary debate about these burdens to an un-nuanced "role of the ballot" or "role of the judge."

Impacts are always relative. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts. This includes procedural fairness - even though I personally do not consider fairness to be essential to the function of the game. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I usually vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact unless someone has won that I should evaluate impacts using a different frame of reference.

Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic.

You should always debate the case. Having a K link on another flow or - dear God - putting the whole 1 off K onto the case flow does not count as debating the case.

I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who effectively balance mirth and rigor, respect and irreverence, and abstractness and concreteness. Also, being good at debate helps: I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals.

High threshold for: RVIs, "perm you do you," infinite condo, asking for perfect speaks

Low threshold for: judge kick, fiat theory of all shapes and sizes, no plan no perm

Pet peeves: tautological framework interpretations (e.g. "Topical affirmatives defend the resolution."), bad capitalism kritiks, choosing to debate online in order to maximize competitive advantage

But will this judge vote for Death Good? Yes, they will.

I'm fine with being postrounded. The debate that just happened may be static, but the ideas are not. You're allowed to be angry if I'm allowed to be cheeky - deal?

Aaron Vinson

Debate Coach, New Trier High School, Illinois

Formerly, Head Coach, Princeton High School, Ohio

Glenbrook North Alum, Miami University of Ohio Alum

email = vinsona@newtrier.k12.il.us

==Updated 8/1/23==

Overarching philosophy of debate/judging (scroll down for thoughts on arguments)

I used to judge a good amount. That has not been the case. I taught at Michigan this summer and probably judged about 15 debates there .

Debate is about having fun - you should read arguments that you enjoy regardless of my past debate background or what arguments my students may or may not read.

Debate is about communication, response, and oral argumentation - if it wasn't in the debate or if it was not clear to me in a debate, it's not a thing. All arguments should have some level of engagement with what the opposing team is saying or they are just floating statements. I try to judge all debates through a lens of, how will I explain to the losing team why they did not win and how can I explain how they could have won.

Debate should be a safe space - be respectful to your partner and opponents; if your "thought experiment" includes trivializing genocide, suicide, x identity, you should consider the impact that that argument might have on your opponents and anyone watching the debate. I understand that discomfort in engaging new areas of literature can be beneficial but there is a line between that and making people feel uncomfortable talking about their own identity (literally referring to CX exchanges with this example). If this is egregious I will feel compelled to intervene.

Thoughts on specific arguments

Topicality - it's fine. Probably hard to win in front of me. What I would call a "low probability victory" because I think most debates fall down into infinitely regressive limits debates that are easily resolved - for me - with reasonable interpretations (that means the aff would have to extend a reasonable interpretation!). To be successful in front of me I think that debating topicality more like a DA (link explanation + impact) and then debating interpretations like a CP (what the debates under each interpretation would be like and why they are good).

Counterplans - they're good. Consult CP's are fine. Condition CP's are fine. Process CP's are mostly fine. Delay CP's are mostly fine. Advantage CP's are good. Agent CP's are good. International Actor CP's are fine. States CP's are good. 2NC CP's are questionable. Offsets CP's can be fine. Affs can be most successful in front of me by explaining what is different between the plan and counterplan and then explaining why that difference is impacted by a specific aff advantage / internal link scenario). Final thought is that the aff often forgets to point out that the billion plank advantage cp prolly links to politics.

Counterplan theory - conditionality is probably good because the alternatives create worse debates. I evaluate these debates technically, which often gives a slight advantage to the neg, and look for impact calculus that never materializes (which is also good for the neg). Also, most things just don't make sense as voting issues except conditionality. If you want to be successful with counterplan theory in front of me, see my notes about topicality. And be very clear about what you want me to do and why (reject the argument, stick them with it, they lose, etc).

Disadvantages - they're good. Politics DA's are good. Elections DA's are okay. Rider DA's are so-so. Tradeoff DA's are good. Economy DA's are good. Spending DA's are so-so. I think intrinsicness is interesting, turns case is a big deal, contextualizing size of DA vs size of case is helpful for all. Negs who make their DA's bigger in the block (impact wise) are often successful in front of me.

Kritiks - they're good. I believe my voting record skews neg because of most aff teams' inability to generate offense. Aff perm strategies are okay but should be contextualized with offense, solvency deficits, etc. I default to fiat meaning "imagine" so sure we arent going to start a world revolution but I could certainly imagine that or we could talk about if that's a good thought experience. I would give myself a "B" for K literacy fluency.

T USFG/Framework - it's good. But ... I believe my voting record skews the other way. I've had the pleasure of many coaches angrily asking me about arguments that weren't in the debate. I view debate as a communication activity and I only consider the arguments presented in the debate. Coaches get upset when this emphasis on technical execution seems to "hurt" their framework team. I think the data bears out that I am winnable for either side. I will say that affs that don't read a plan AND are not in the same direction as the resolution OR don't read a plan AND are not related to the resolution have a low win rate in front of me. See notes about debating topicality in front of me.

Ethics - clipping is bad. Miscutting evidence is bad. Misrepresenting evidence is bad. Misdisclosing is bad. Are any of these things auto-losses in-front of me? Probably not. Context matters. If one piece of evidence is miscut or misrepresented, it seems reasonable to just imagine that card wasn't read. If someone does want to stake the debate on one of these things that can be verified, I can be persuaded. If team A asserts that team B has clipped or miscut evidence, and stakes the debate on it, and is wrong, team A would lose. That's what it means to stake the debate on something.

Speaker points - I know I look 16 but I'm much older. So are my points. I'm trying to be better to represent changing norms but that's a thing. If you lose you're probably getting a 28 something if you were reasonable. If you weren't reasonable you're probably getting a high 27. If you win I try to think about if I would expect the team to break at the tournament. If so they're probably getting a 29. Then relative comparisons to other people in the debate kick in. Things that bump your points up: clarity, cx, respecting your opponent, judge instruction, evaluation and assessment based arguments at the end. Things that can bump your points down: being hard to understand/follow, being mean, not kicking arguments correctly, not attempting line by line, only reading cards, not answering / not letting your partner answer in cx, not disclosing to your opponent before I get there, tech incompetence, prep shenaningans.

whitakerdebates@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

I debated 4 years at Towson University, coached Stanford University during the 2015-2016 season, Wake Forest University from 2016-2018, and am now the Director of Debate at Towson University.

I have judged very few debates on this years topic so assume that I am unfamiliar with your acronyms and/or unique theoretical approach to the topic. In-depth explanation of your arguments and evidence comparison will get you far in the debate.

I'm was performance debater. With that being said run traditional policy arguments at your own risk, but if I don't understand what I'm voting for, I'm very likely not to vote.

If the K is what you like, do that; give me links and impacts and tell me how those impacts interact with everything else going on in the round (needs to be explained thoroughly). A good 2AR/2NR tells me how I vote and why I vote that way.

An argument conceded is an argument won by the opposing team--unless I'm told otherwise.

Framework comes first--unless debaters tell me otherwise.

I do not prefer theory debates, so run them at your own risk.
In general, don't leave me to my own devices as my opinions on certain arguments tend to occasionally shift or be somewhat different than the norm. Tell me how to vote and I'll vote.


I would like to be on the email chain KwhitL15@gmail.com

Last Updated: February 8, 2024

Assistant Policy Debate Coach @ Berkeley Preparatory School.

Debated at Little Rock Central High School (TOC Finalist '16) and Wake Forest University (NDT 1st round '19).

- Put me on the email chain: williamsd.j.jr@gmail.com

General/TLDR:

Please be CLEAR. I will not yell "clear" at you doing the round. If I can't understand you, having debated, judged, and coached at the highest level for 10+ years, then your speaking is egregious, and I WON'T flow it. I will also lower your speaks

I don't have an argument style preference and willing to judge everything. I primarily read Ks/K affs; however, I was introduced to debate as a "traditional" policy debater and read T, DAs, and CPs throughout my career. I prefer not to evaluate arguments about debater's character/behavior outside of the round, UNLESS you got receipts and it's relevant to the round. If it happens during the round, go for it.

Tech over truth; however, I find myself overly frustrated with the throwing everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy. I will not likely resolve an entire debate on an underdeveloped (i.e. no impact) "dropped" arguments unless the argument isn't answered in two speeches.

Personally, I view debate as a game. That being said, I do think there is value to debate outside of competitive success. Debate has changed and will continue to change many people's lives. I can be persuaded that something else is equally, if not more important, than wins and losses.

"Judge instruction, impact framing, comparison of evidence, authors, warrants, etc. or “the art of spin” is the most important thing for telling me how I should decide a debate. Making strategic decisions is important.

One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument. But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it." -- Sam Gustavson

Framework/Non-Traditional Affs:

I am a fan of clash debates, and I willing to vote for both sides.

I believe affs should be in the direction of the topic (i.e. at the very least questioning the assumptions undergirding the resolution). I am not likely to vote on aff that is completely unrelated to the topic, assuming the team goes for FW. Affs that discuss the topic and link turn FW (e.g. explain why they access education, clash, or fairness impacts) are more persuasive to me than trying to label framework as violent or impact turning everything. If you take the latter route, make sure to explain how voting aff solves. You will also need to win some defense to FW no matter which strategy you employ.

Fairness can be a terminal impact or an internal link, but it depends on how it's debated. Saying "debate is a game," "you follow certain rules," or "you expect the judge to adjudicate fairly" is not always enough for me, but at worst will be evaluated as defense to the aff's model of debate. I am more compelled by a team that clearly articulates all of the following: their conception of a fair debate, how the other team has impeded your ability to access fairness, how your interpretation ensures fairness, and why preserving fairness matters (e.g. participation, debatability, etc.). Winning fairness is an intrinsic good is be an uphill battle in front of me, though not impossible. These arguments sound circular and often lack a clear impact (e.g. "debate is a game, so it needs to be fair because it's a game"). I want to know why the game matters. Whether that's competition or some other external offense, it needs to be contextualized to the debate and the other team's offense.

I believe debate CAN (not does) shape subjectivity; however, I don't think this argument is unique offense for K affs because: 1) Other things influence our subjectivity as well. However, I am not persuaded by the neg just listing various things that influence our subjectivity and labelling them as alt causes. You will have to either read evidence or make arguments explaining why those other things have a greater/significant enough influence on subject formation. 2) Policy debates can also influence subjectivity for good. I am a fan of negative teams that take this route. Explain to my why your model of debate is preferable for crafting people who are ethical and possess the necessary skills to solve some external impact or the aff's impacts. 3) I don't believe all subjectivity crafted in debate is uniquely good. The onus is on you to explain which form of subjectivity is preferable.

I prefer testing/clash/education impacts because they serves as a better internal link to the why debate matters and encourages more interaction with the aff and vice versa. If you explain to me why having limited/ predictable debaters produces some external value/solves some external impact the aff can't, you will be in a great position. Even better, if this is combined with a specific TVA(s) or SSD arguments. This will force the aff to not only defend the intrinsic value of reading their 1AC but also why their model of debate outweighs, which I find is harder to do.

Counter-interpretations matter. You don't have to counter define specific words in the resolution, but I do need to understand the role of the aff and neg in order for me to evaluate offense and defense. I am not a fan of self-serving counter-interps (e.g. "squo + our aff" or "affirm X methodology"). I think you ended up linking to a lot of your own exclusion offense, and it requires you winning a specific uniqueness argument about the nature of debate or academic scholarship. Just articulate what your vision of debate is and why those debates are good.

Kritiks (vs. Policy Affs):

The more specific the better. I prefer you have specific links to the plan with clear impacts/turns case arguments. This allows you to win the debate without an alternative or winning FW. Nevertheless, I will evaluate links to the aff's rhetoric, reps, epistemology, impacts, etc. Generic links will require you at least winning FW (i.e. arguing that I should view the debate in some way other than "weighing the consequences of the plan vs. squo/alt"), and will find it hard to beat the traditional aff presses (e.g. case outweighs, try-or-die, alt fails, perms) in a close debate.

Make strategic 2NR decisions.Don't go for every link, DA to the perm, framework DA, etc.

Kritiks (vs. K Affs):

ESKETIT!!! May the more well read team win lol.

In all seriousness, too many of these debates devolve down to root cause debates or disagreements about scholarship without impacting out what it means one's analysis of the problem is wrong. Don't just try to out theorize the other team, but explain the significance of my ballot.

I'm pretty familiar with most critical theory. I primarily read arguments related to race, but I have a lot of experience in postmodernism as well.

Role of the ballot claims are typically too self-serving. I'd prefer these debates to mimic FW debates in plan v. K debates. Give me the guidelines for evaluating what's important (e.g. material solvency, ethics, epistemology, etc.) and why. I will default to whatever evaluating metric I'm given in debates in which the ROB is well-developed or completely dropped.

Perms usually win this debate for me, when the K is not specific to the aff. DAs to the perm need to be impact out in order for the vote on them. I might still vote on a perm if the neg just extends blippy DAs or perm theory that lacks an impact.

I typically end up reading a lot of evidence when deciding these debates, so make sure your arguments are extrapolating too much from the warrants in your cards.

Topicality:

I enjoy these debates. Just make sure to have a clear impact in the 2NR and not get too focused on just proving the violation. Give case lists, examples of ground lost under the aff's interp, explanation for why debates under your interp are better, etc. The aff needs to do the same.

T is being under utilized by everyone, especially by K teams going up against questionably topical soft left affs. I enjoy listening to debates where Kritikal teams extend topicality. I did this a lot in high school, and it was very helpful for setting up links because T forces the aff to clearly define what it thinks the aff does.

I typically default to competing interps rather than reasonability because any metric I would employ to establish that standard is arbitrary and infinitely regressive. However, I am open to voting on this argument, assuming the aff team explains why their interp is capable of providing sufficient ground for the aff and neg, equitable research burdens, and quality debates. This requires you establishing a threshold for your reasonability standard and explaining why it is a better model of debate for deciding topicality debates.

Saying the following: "plan text in vacuum" without explaining why this standard is best to interpret the meaning and scope of words in the plan, "functional limits check" without a warrant for why your interp preserves equitable ground, "intent to define" without justification, etc. mean nothing to me.

Counterplans:

Prefer CPs to be specific to the aff. Generics and PICs are fine though. Must have a net benefit. I prefer the net benefit to disprove the desirability of the plan (i.e. politics, spending DA vs. internal net benefit).CPs should be at least functionally competitive, but I would prefer them to also be textually competitive as well. I apply the same standard to permutations as well.

Aff should have offense against the CP (e.g. solvency deficit, DA to CP, aff/perm links less to the net benefit than the CP, etc).

Perms aren't advocacies, just a test of competition. Saying "perm do both," "perm do the cp," "perm do each," etc. means nothing to me without a warrants about how it's function challenges mutual exclusivity.

I am easily persuaded on conditionality being good (at least 1 CP/ 1 K is fine), but I am willing to vote on conditionality bad, especially when the neg has multiple contradicting positions. I'm not a fan of multiple plank counterplans, when each plank is conditional. This greatly skews the aff's strategy and disincentives them researching the CP or reading a 2AC add on.

Don't make a sufficiency framing argument without doing the work to explain why the CP does not need to solve the entire aff or why I should prefer it as long as it solves most/certain parts of the aff. You have to instruct me on what is "sufficient" and how that influences the way I should evaluate impacts.

Disadvantages:

Prefer aff/topic specific DAs to politics, but I don't really care if there's good link debating.

Please explain the DA in the overview whether or not it is conceded. Go through each part (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact) before the line by line.

Evidence quality matters. Many times in closed debates I will base my decision based on the warrants provided in the evidence.

Impact comparison is really important.Arguments about timeframe and probability are more persuasive to me than magnitude, assuming both teams have an existential impact. Neg teams that make quality turns case arguments are typically successful in front of me because it helps me weigh the significance of an impact.

Aff teams should attack the internal link more so than reading impact defense. I am more persuaded by the fact that economic decline doesn't lead to nuclear war, especially when teams don't articulate the specifics of their scenario (e.g. which countries go to war, what's unique about this economic downturn, etc.) rather than nuclear war/warming/etc. not causing extinction. The latter typically requires more scientific explanation that many teams (myself included) are not well versed enough to evaluate the truth of. The former requires more common sense, empirics.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

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

Conflicts: AUDL teams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

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

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

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

Background:

USN head coach 2012-present

MBA assistant coach 2000-2002

The stuff you are looking for:

email chain: bwilson at usn.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's cool frfr. I'll judge your round. Don't be a racist or w/e and make your arguments well.

-See Devon Schley's Paradigm, we're basically the same person but I like Afropess less-

David Zin

Debate Coach, Okemos High School

debate at okemosk12.net

Quick version: If you want to run it, justify it and win it and I'll go for it. I tend to think the resolution is the focus (rather than the plan), but have yet to see a high school round where that was a point with which anybody took issue or advantage. I like succinct tags, but there should be an explanation/warrant or evidence after them. I do pine for the days when debaters would at least say something like "next" when moving from one argument to another. If you run a critical argument, explain it--don't assume I understand the nuances or jargon of your theory. Similarly, the few critical debaters who have delivered succinct tags on their evidence to me have been well-rewarded. Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I can't flow your 55-70 word tag, and the parts I get might not be the parts you want. I think all four debaters are intelligent beings, so don't be rude to your opponent or your partner, and try not to make c-x a free-for-all, or an opportunity for you to mow over your partner. I like the final rebuttals to compare and evaluate, not just say "we beat on time-frame and magnitude"--give me some explanation, and don't assume you are winning everything on the flow. Anything else, just ask.

The longer version: I'm a dinosaur. I debated in college more than 30 years ago. I coached at Michigan State University for 5 years. I'm old enough I might have coached or debated your parents. I got back into debate because I wanted my children to learn debate.

That history is relevant because I am potentially neither as fast a flow as I used to be (rest assured, you needn't pretend the round is after-dinner speaking) and for years I did not kept pace with many of the argumentative developments that occurred. I know and understand a number of K's, but if you make the assumption I am intimately familiar with some aspect of of your K (especially if it is high theory or particularly esoteric), you may not like the results you get. Go for the idea/theme not the author (always more effective than simply saying Baudrillard or Zizek or Hartman or Sexton). If you like to use the word "subjectivity" a lot on your K argumentation, you might explain what you mean. Same thing for policy and K debaters alike when they like to argue "violence".

Default Perspective:

Having discussed my inadequacies as a judge, here is my default position for judging rounds: Absent other argumentation, I view the focus of the round as the resolution. The resolution may implicitly shrink to the affirmative if that is the only representation discussed. If I sign the ballot affirmative, I am generally voting to accept the resolution, and if the affirmative is the only representation, then it is as embodied by the affirmative. However, I like the debaters to essentially have free rein--making me somewhat tabula rosa. So if you prefer a more resolution focus rather than plan focus, I'm there. I also like cases that have essential content and theory elements (stock issues), but if one is missing or bad, the negative needs to bring it up and win it to win. I do generally view my role as a policy maker, in that I am trying to evaluate the merits of a policy that will be applied to the real world--but that evaluation is being done in a format that has strong gamelike aspects and strong "cognitive laboratory" aspects. A policymaker perspective does not preclude examining critical/epistemological questions...but ultimately when I do so, I feel it's still through some sort of policy making perspective (educational policy, social policy, or "am I thinking about this correctly" when considering my view on the policy question: if my epistemology is a geocentric universe and the plan wants to send a mission to Mars, do I have the right knowledge system to guarantee the rocket arrives in the right place). I will accept counter-intuitive arguments (e.g. extinction is good) and vote on them--although you will have to justify/win such an approach if it is challenged and in many cases there is a bit of a natural bias against such arguments.

I say "absent other argumentation" because if you want me to use another process, I all ears. I'm pretty open-minded about arguments (even counter-intuitive ones), so if you want to run something, either theoretical or substantive, justify it, argue it, and if you win it, I'll vote for it.

Weighing Arguments:

The biggest problem I observed when I did judge college rounds, and at the high school level, is that debates about how I should evaluate the round are often incomplete and/or muddled, such as justifying the use of some deontological criteria on utilitarian grounds. While such consequentialism is certainly an option in evaluating deontological positions, I struggle to see how I'm not ultimately just deciding a round on some utilitarian risk-based decision calculus like I would ordinarily use. I've had this statement in my philosophy for years and no one seems to understand it: if I reject cap, or the state, or racism, or violations of human rights, or whatever because it leads to extinction/war/whatever, am I really being deontological--or just letting you access extinction via a perspective (using utilitarian consequences to justify your impacts, and some strategy or rhetoric to simply exclude utilitarian impacts that might counter your position). That fine if that's why you want it, but I think it makes "reject every instance" quite difficult, since every instance probably has solvency issues and certainly creates some low internal link probabilities. If you do truly argue something deontologically, having some sort of hierarchy so I can see where the other team's impacts fit would be helpful--especially if they are arguing an deontological position as well. Applying your position might be helpful: think how you would reconcile the classic argument of "you can't have rights if you are dead, yet many have been willing to give their life for rights". Sorting out that statement does an awful lot for you in a deontology vs. utilitarianism round. Why is your argument the case for one or the other?

Given my hypothesis-testing tendencies, conditionality can be fine. However, as indicated above, by default I view the round as a policy-making choice. If you run three conditional counterplans, that's fine but I need to know what they are conditional upon or I don't know what policy I am voting for when I sign the ballot—or if I even need to evaluate them. I prefer, although almost never get it, that conditionality should be based on a substantive argument in the round, preferably a claim the other team made. Related to that, you can probably tell I'm not a fan of judge kick for condo. If you have it in 2NR, my perspective is that is your advocacy option...and if it isn't internally consistent, you may have problems. Similarly, if you are aff and your plan merely restates the resolution but your solvency evidence and position clearly are relying on something more nuanced (and obviously you don't have it in your plan), you make it difficult for me to give you a lot of solvency credibility if the neg is hitting you hard on it (if they aren't, well that's their poor choice and you get to skim by).

Theory and K's:

I can like both theory args, especially T, when the debate unfolds with real analysis, not a ton of 3-5 word tags that people rip through. Theory arguments (including T) can be very rewarding, and often are a place where the best debaters can show their skills. However, debaters often provide poorly developed arguments and the debate often lacks real analysis. I do not like theory arguments that eliminate ground for one side or the other, are patently abusive, or patently time sucks. I like theory arguments but want them treated well. Those who know me are aware I like a good T argument/debate more than most...I'm just complaining that I rarely see a good T debate.

I'm not a fan of K's, but they definitely have a place in debate. I will vote on one (and have voted for them numerous times) if two things happen: 1) I understand it and 2) you win it. That's a relatively low threshold, but if you babble author names, jargon, or have tags longer than most policy teams' plans, you make it much harder for me.

Style Stuff:

As for argument preferences, I'll vote on things that do not meet my criteria, although I dislike being put in the position of having to reconcile two incomprehensible positions. I'll vote on anything you can justify and win. If you want me in a specific paradigm, justify it and win that I should use it. I like a 2ar/2nr that ties up loose ends and evaluates (read: compares)--recognizing that they probably aren't winning everything on the flow.

I don't like to ask for cards after the round, or reviewing the evidence in pocketbox, etc. and will not ask for a card I couldn't understand because you were unintelligible. If there is a debate over what a card really says or signifies, or it seems to contain a nuance highlighted in the round that is worth checking, I may take a look at the evidence.

I traditionally rely on providing nonverbal feedback—if I'm not writing anything, or I'm looking at you with a confused expression, I'm probably not getting what you are saying for one reason or another.

Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute. If I missed something in your speech, that is your fault--either because you did not emphasize it adequately in the round or you were unintelligible. If you are a gasper, you'll probably get better points if you slow down a bit. I tend to dislike prompting on content, but keeping your partner on pace is fine. I'd prefer you ask/answer your own c-x questions. I like numbering and organization, even though much has apparently died. At this point, even hearing "next" when going to the next tag would be a breath of fresh air (especially when it isn't being read off of a block). Similarly, I'll reward you if you have clear tags that would fit on a bumper sticker I could read without tailgating. Humor is a highly successful way to improve your speaker points. If you are organized, intelligible and funny, the much-sought-after 30 is something I have given. I haven't given many, but that reflects the debaters I've heard, not some unreasonable predisposition or threshold.

If you have questions about anything not on here, just ask.