Summary: I like to see good debates, which for me means that it’s more important that you debate how you debate best not in the stylistic way you think I want to see. Be aware that, while I have no problem comprehending speed, I’m not the quickest flow so I probably need slightly more pen time than average if you’re going fast.

Background: I did 4 years of NPDA/NPTE debate (2011-2015) at Wheaton. Since then, I’ve only judged occasionally, maybe 50 rounds in the last three years. I still have a strong grasp of debate-style argumentation, jargon, and many key positions, but might not be up on recent trends.

Preferences: I belong to the ‘debate is a game’ school of thought, but I also recognize that it has implications on individuals outside of the game aspects. I do my best to be sensitive to those implications and am willing to listen to any arguments about them. I expect everyone to be respectful of the personhood of the people they’re engaging. Since debate is a game where you set the rules, I try to be as flow-centric as possible for the purpose of my ballot unless you’re winning arguments that tell me to do otherwise.

Speed: I tend to think that speed is overall good for the debate, but really don’t enjoy it being used as a crutch by teams to win debates against slower teams. Please go as fast as you want as long as it’s accessible to everyone in the room. I am, however, a slower flow than I used to be, so recognize that if you’re quite fast you may want to slow down a bit if you want me to reliably flow your warrants and not just vague tags.

Specific Positions: Feel free to run any positions you want (critical affs, advantages, case turns, DAs, Ks, theory, etc.). I ran a variety of arguments, but tended to rely mostly on case debate, critical affs, and Ks in the last couple years of my career. I’ll listen to whatever you want to debate—I’d rather see a good in-depth economics debate or T debate (though those weren’t my typical strategies) than a bad critical debate, and vice-versa.

Theory: I might have a slightly lower threshold on theory (T, condo, MG theory, whatever) than some, in part because I’ve never bought that proven abuse is really necessary (though go ahead to argue that it is, you can win it).

Performance: I don’t like thinking of ‘performance’ debate (for lack of a better term, since all debate is performative) as a fundamentally different type of debate. Please make the role of the judge in these debates very clear if you care about it (this doesn’t have to be structured in any specific way though). I am receptive to arguments that aff doesn’t need to defend the topic and to arguments that they should.

Speaker points: Range: usually I give the top speaker in a round between 28.5 and 30 (with 30 being rare) and then down from there (rarely below 27). Average overall is probably around 28. While I vote on the flow, I really enjoy watching creative debate and that may show up in my speaker points. I value unconventional interpretations of topics (though I also don’t mind T debates either), enjoy theory debates—including weird, atypical ones—and find the most enjoyable debates to be technical and involving in-round divergent thinking. If your position or how you use it in the later constructives surprises me, that may bode well for your speaks.

Lance Allen

I competed in Parli and IE’s for 4 years at Mckendree University and have now coached for 7 years.

I think this means that I have a diverse background of knowledge for most types of debate. I am comfortable in quick K debates and also comfortable in more traditional rounds. I have experience in high level college LD rounds and I also have lots of experience with first year novice rounds. While am I am competent in a K debate, I am most comfortable in a case/DA/CP debate. This means the K needs to be well explained. I tend to weigh Magnitude and Probability before timeframe until you tell me otherwise.

You should feel comfortable running any position in front of me! The most important thing is that it is well explained and well defended.

Joe Blasdel

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 1/7/23

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree in 2003 (mostly NPDA, some LD and IEs) and have been doing so ever since. I have also coached debate at Belleville East (PF and LD) for the last two years.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / general thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

2. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a cost/benefit analysis in evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#3 NFA LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging NFA LD (in no particular order):

1. During the debate, I will flow what's being said rather than read the speech docs. I will review speech docs between speeches and after the round.

2. While carded evidence is obviously important in this format, I also appreciate warranted analytic arguments - probably more than the average NFA LD judge.

3. Having not judged a lot of LD of recent, I'm unsure if I can flow the fastest of debates. If I cannot flow due to clarity or speed, I will indicate that's the case.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

#4 NPDA / General thoughts

Section 1: General Information

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the affirmative has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.

If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than the average NPDA judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, it’s important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, it’s likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based arguments…

Same as above.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold. I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, I’m probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

2018 NPDA National Champion

I can judge pretty much anything. Just be clear and have fun.

For additional speaker points, consult the below recipe.

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

***Before you strike me, ask your DoF how many times I beat the teams they coached. Now, rethink your strike and pref me higher.***

Ingredients:

• 1⁄2 cup butter
• 2 tablespoons cream cheese
• 1 pint heavy cream
• 1 teaspoon garlic powder
• salt
• black pepper
• 2⁄3 cup grated parmesan cheese (preferably fresh)
• 1 lb fettuccine, prepared as directed

Directions:

1. In a medium saucepan, melt butter.
2. When butter is melted, add cream cheese.
3. When the cream cheese is softened, add heavy cream.
4. Season with garlic powder, salt, and pepper.
5. Simmer for 15-20 minutes over low heat, stirring constantly.
6. Remove from heat and stir in parmesan.
7. Serve over hot fettuccine noodles.

Nicole Brown_________________

School: Texas Tech_________________

Section 1: General Information

I think that the debate is for the debaters so I will listen to anything. I am not against any particular type of debate as long as it is well explained and please don’t rely on me knowing all the jargon or all of the philosophers that you want to talk about, as long as it is explained I can follow. I think that good impact calculus is important in the debate round. I like a comparison of the issues to make my decision easier. I am also not the best at keeping up in a fast round so it might help you to slow down, I have been out of the activity for a while.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Please describe your approach to the following.

1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?

27-30

2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I think that critically framed arguments are fine. I like to have a clear way to evaluate the round. I like to know the role of the ballot and why I should vote the way I should. I like for things to be simplified so I don’t have to intervene. I don’t see a problem with arguments being contradictory unless the other team raises a theoretical objection.

3. Performance based arguments…don’t bother me. I don’t have anything against them. I just like a clear framework on how I should vote. As I stated above, I don’t have a clear way that I vote on performance, it seems to be different every time. I think the framework debate is important to have.

4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

I think that in round abuse is the easiest way to win topicality in front of me but I will vote on T if you are able to explain what ground was lost and why you should have access to that ground. Please slow down the interpretation and read it twice for me

5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

I will listen to any CP. I feel that all of these questions are things that should be debated out in the round. I think that the opp should identify the status of the CP and provide a text.

6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

It does not bother me.

7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

I feel like all of this should be done in the round but if it isn’t I generally look at Topicality/procedurals first then evaluate the rest of the issues based on importance in the round set up by the debaters. If no weighing mechanism is established, I default to net-benefits.

8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

Again I think this should be done in the round but if not done I generally will compare abstract concepts less than concrete impacts but this shouldn’t be a problem because I will listen to whatever happens in the round. I think weighing within the round is important so I don’t have to intervene.

If you're not going to be cordial and polite, do not expect exceptional speaks. The "best" debater is a reflection of skill, execution, and decorum.

I reserve the right to reject the debater AND the team for hostile actions/behavior that occurs in the context of a round; pre round prep/disclosure, after the debate has started, and while the round is being decided. I consider my role to be as an educator first, and an adjudicator second. If it would not be acceptable during school, it will not be acceptable in front of me. I will absolutely NOT tolerate any personal attacks.

(be kind or go home)

and yes, I would like to be on the email chain katecarroll4[at]gmail[dot]com

PF:

• showing up to rounds when they are supposed to start, or late without good reason is disrespectful to your competitors, your judges, and the tournament hosts. if a team shows up late, or exactly when the round is supposed to start, they will automatically forfeit the flip. absent exceptional circumstances, tardiness is a reason to give you lower speaks.

Refer to Christian Vasquez’s Paradigm for the PF translation of my philosophy.

• I will flow, clarity is important, and arguments must be impacted.

• Paraphrasing in front of me is not a good idea.

• Paraphrasing is uniquely bad and bad for debate. I consider paraphrasing to be a reason to vote you down. I consider paraphrasing to be equivalent to card clipping, which is cheating.

• At best, if you paraphrase in front of me I will not consider paraphrased arguments with the same weight as carded arguments w/ warrants.

• Disclosure is good, you will not win "disclosure bad" theory arguments in front of me.

• if it wasn't evident with the policy background.. yes, speed is fine.

• give a roadmap. a roadmap looks like: "I will start on our case, contention 1: war, contention 2: oceans, contention 3: terrorism, then I will go to the opponent's case, their contention 2: oil, contention 1: tariffs"

• for the first constructives tell me: 1, how many "sheets" I will need. Can mean either physical paper or spreadsheet tabs.

• overviews are a waste of time.

• if you do not have a plan, you do not have fiat. pf has no plans = no fiat

• Winning a defensive argument does not mean that you win the debate. I consider a turn that is not impacted as a defensive argument.

• Offense to me means impacts, you can interpret that as consequences.

• Terminal impacts do not need to be held to the threshold of nuclear war, but they also need to be more than "econ decline is bad." Your impact explanation should (at the bare minimum) look something like this: "econ decline is bad because XYZ happens"

This debate is about the resolution/topic: being a good/bad idea. This debate is not about the hypothetical implementation of any plan. there is no such thing as "fiat" in PF because there is no plan.

MOST IMPORANTLY:

"Strike me if you're not going to read cards. These are cards. If I have to ask for a card at the end of the round and what you show me isn't close to that, I'm just not considering it for the round. I'll just evaluate my flow as if it wasn't there.

Telling me that you've summarized this part and that part of a 40 page PDF is ridiculous. More than half the time the article isn't about the actual debate topic and you're just hoping no one calls you out for it. Paraphrasing in public forum is out of control and it's really become intellectually dishonest.

Here's even a link to Verbatim, a macro template that works with Microsoft Word so that card cutting is really easy."

Policy: JV/Novice Specific:

I try to be more of a teacher than a judge. I believe that it's part of my role to make sure that you're using best practices, and that both teams have an idea of what is going on in the round.

if you show me your flows and they're good, I could give you extra speaker points.

that being said:

you must have a full debate with all 4 constructive speeches and all 4 rebuttals. you have to try.

I'm willing to be flexible, if you need something ask. If you're confused about the structure or how to do things, or need tech help let me know.

general policy things:

• Clarity is important and will be reflected in speaks. I will not hesitate to yell clear if I am having trouble understanding you.
• Be on time! start the debate on time! if you're late absent a compelling reason it will negatively impact your speaks.
• I'll listen to anything, but in the spirit of best judging practices it’s good to know that I am not the best judge for niche kritiks
• in order to win the debate you must win the line by line
• Be nice to each other, will be reflected in speaks if you're a jerk to your partner/opponent
• Pet peeve-when sides call the advantages/off case different things. don't do that
• Tech over truth
• If your overview is longer than 1 min it's no longer an overview, it's just a waste of your time. put the link overview on the link debate, the uniqueness overview w/the uniqueness debate, etc.
• You must impact dropped args/args in general
• Generally think t is not a question of solvency, I am easily convinced that limits are good.
• Reading wipeout, Schopenhauer, death good, time cube, and/or death cult in front of me is a waste of your time.
• Conditionality is meh, the argument for 3 being bad is a lot more compelling than 2 ill default to in round abuse. but will likely not be compelled to vote on two is abusive.
• You must extend an interpretation and violation or CI if you're going for T!!!!!!!!!
• I'd prefer email chains to flashing 1) faster, 2) no worries about viruses and 3) less prep thievery
• I believe that card clipping is a reason to reject the team, but you must have coherent evidence (audio/video recording). If I catch you I will call you out and you will lose the debate (If the other team doesn't notice or calls you out). The team card clipping will get zero speaks. If you choose to stake the debate on this violation I will evaluate the evidence and if there is substantial evidence the team that card clips will lose the debate. Substantial evidence is an audio recording.

do your thing, do it well and I'll vote for you.

I would rather you not read a plan text than read a meaningless plan text. Either be policy or don't be policy, the in-between sacrifices a lot of offense.

If you are a debater that reads non-traditional arguments know a few things:
1. you still have to win the line by line to win the debate, regardless if it is on FW or the aff.
2. you must answer all relevant theory arguments
3. "help" me flow, frame things from an impact/link/etc. perspective.


if you have any questions for me, ask.

regardless:

I will still vote for you if you win the debate. (absent any sorts of cheating/card clipping)

fun facts:
my favorite topic in hs was the transportation topic
I lost to one off t-its once as a sophomore
favorite color is green

Wayzata 14'
University of Minnesota 18

email me if there's any other questions katecarroll4[at]gmail[dot]com

TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well.

While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.

I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.

Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.

I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good luck :)

I am a fairly straight-up critic. I view debate as a game, not a community, a training ground for a particular cause, or a place to air my own grievances. Don't worry about appealing to what you think my ideology is. I vote on the stupidest shit all the time, so just do what you think is strategic. That being said, tell me it is and why and I'll view it that way for the round. Tell me where to vote, win it, I'll vote on it. It's basically that simple.

- The K. I vote for it a lot because I don't particularly see my ballot as my own personal moral imprimatur. I enjoy good framework debate, most of it is relatively bad. Alt debate is better. While I am familiar with a lot general kritiks, please do not assume I care about your lit even 1/200th as much as you, so dropping a lot of references I should get will not work very well as an empiric or analytic for me.

Please be relevant. I don't mind a generic cap k for some godawful debate about the minutiae of financial regulation or something. But try to make it slightly connected to the topic beyond, "You reify the state by using the USFG as an actor. Next off, 8 minutes of state bad."

-Theory: Don't mind it. Pet peeve: counter interps should be actually counter to something. "The aff should be held to the resolution" is neither counter nor an interp.

-DAs. I'm a huge fan of good uniqueness debates. Bad uniqueness debates (oh here's 5 reasons why the econ is up, naw dawg here's 6 reasons why its down. 6> 5 duh.) make me sad. Personally how I decide on this will go a long way in how I decide the direction of the DA and its likelihood since it is a debate on what world the plan takes part in to begin with.

Major points: Internal link/impact defense. Does not happen enough. It sucks how much each sides just spots wild internal link scenarios with nothing filled in at all.

Counter plans/perm debate.
Competition is good. Personally, I prefer net benefits competition as I think it's the most educational. Mutual exclusivity is usually just a form of NB competition though I am open to arguments as to why it is not.

Impact Calc: If no one tells me how to judge impact debates then I revert to magnitude and probability. So if you just tell me your impact is bigger and they tell me that theirs is more probable, I will probably revert to the bigger magnitude impact (especially if its extinction vs. someone feels bad about themselves).

Give me reasons why prob > mag or vice versa. I do enjoy good defense debate on the probability level. Time frame isn't brought up enough. I'm also a big fan of the "Big mag impacts bad v. Big mag impacts good" debate. But if it doesn't happen, unfortunately, I'm a hack for the mag x prob (extinction x .000001 still pretty big risk) impact calc. Not totally against "key to value to life" args if they are decent internal links into what gives human life value. But baseless claims of, "And now there's no value to life!" claims are pretty easily beaten in front of me.

-House keeping

>Speed: Don't care one way or another. I will clear you if I can't understand. I can hang, though slightly less than when I was competing since my ego isn't in the round anymore. If your advocacy is long as hell please repeat it.

>Points of order: Call them. I can't guarantee me catching them cheating every time. So unless you want me letting it slide and someone throws a tantrum, call it. But if you're some senior team on the national circuit pummeling some freshman babies from a CC and you really feel the need to call 18 points of order this poor child's PMR, you should feel bad.

>Side note: Don't freak out if you get a 27 in speaker points. That's good from me. I've seen like, maybe 2-3, truly 30 point speeches in my life so idk why everyone expects it so much.

>Speaking personally due to my own history, I do not care for excessive shouting/cursing. I also really do not care for debate being made personal against the individual debaters. I will not vote on an argument that demands I adjudicate the intent of someone in the round (i.e the argument is wrong vs "the aff is lying"). Additionally for the record as this weirdly becomes an issue in debate lately, I am a white Hispanic. I find other white-passing individuals using similar stories to pull a functional Elizabeth Warren to answer identity oriented arguments extremely cringeworthy. Cringe = speaker points hit.

I don't vote on IVIs. Claims of "time suck" are just absurd, please do not run this.
I don't vote on procedurals or kritiks based on speed. The barest of defense on this will be seen as terminal by me.
I will not, under any circumstances, vote for advocacy that explicitly calls for categorical eliminationist violence against people, based on their membership in a particular group. I should not have to write this but it seems I do.

>For PSCFA circuit: I don't vote on "this should be a fact round." Don't be ridiculous. I don't care if they drop it I will literally not vote for it, it's my one thing I'm just not going to do. Do not cry about it because you didn't read this section.

>NFA specific:
-I am on a cop on the rules, sorry. This is due to the fact that the NFA authorizes tournament directors to levy fines on schools for judges not following the rules and that is a risk that I am not willing to take. I am very open to arguments based on what the rules actually say, which is often quite broad or vague (whatever "conversational" or "pleasant" or "area of further study" means).
-That being said, my threshold for terminal defense on alleged rules violations is extremely low in NFA-LD given that the cards are right there and there is nothing really being lost. Tbh I really don't know what conversational means either.
-I am fine with theory and Kritiks but naturally, I will listen to old school type arguments on why they do not indict whether or not the aff has fulfilled their stock issues burden or whether or not your particular kritik would be allowable by the rules.

TOO LONG DIDN’T READ: You do you. If you bring me chai I will give block 30’s. If you have questions then ask me.

Theory arguments are boring.

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you don’t have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I don’t have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and I’ll always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments I’ve seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and I’m never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and I’ll come along for the ride.

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:

1. Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.

2. I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.

3. I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.

4. I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesn’t appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.

5. I don’t exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.

6. I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.

7. I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.

8. Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.

9. Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.

10. In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.

11. All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesn’t come up, but it can. Don’t say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.

General

This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine – I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophy’s guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If I’m flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I don’t ask you to slow down, you’re fine – don’t worry about it. I don’t number arguments as I flow, so don’t expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the “pages” of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, “MAD checks” on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, I’ve noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a “no condo” interp. Basically, if the aff says “you can’t do that because it is bad” and the neg says “it is not bad and, in fact, is good” I do not think the neg should have to say “yes, I can do that” (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think “some condo” interps instead of “all condo”).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But don’t use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if you’re neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

I’m going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because they’re just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each other’s flows and into each other’s speeches. Seek out clash!

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that author’s position or the argument you’ve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that you’re leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an “even if” argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and I’ll do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesn’t win evidence debates – the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds we’re in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We don’t just rely on someone else saying it – we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, let’s do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if you’ve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs don’t always do that. I think “risk of solvency” only applies if I know what I’m risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that “risk” on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain “that’s a presumption trigger because…”.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I don’t see that contextualized well and is often just a “risk of solvency” type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a ‘we meet’ – so ‘aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive)’ is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesn’t work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesn’t necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably don’t try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between. At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

NFA-LD

I tend to think disclosure of affs (once you’ve read them) is good and almost necessary and that disclosure of negs is very kind, but not necessary. The more generic a neg position is, the more likely I am to want it disclosed, but I’ll never expect it to be disclosed. I won’t take a strong position on any of this – disclose what you want to disclose (or don’t disclose at all) and defend that practice if necessary.

Affirmatives should stake out specific ground in the 1AC and defend it throughout the round. I don’t care how you do this, whether it is a plan, an advocacy, a performance is up to you. I think that topical plan debate is often the easiest to access, but I don’t believe that makes it the only accessible form of debate or the only good form of debate. So, read the aff you want to read, but be prepared to defend it. Affirmative debaters can (and sometimes should) kick their advantage offense to go for offense on a neg position. I don’t see this enough and I really wish it was more common in plan debates, especially.

Negatives should answer the aff. How you answer the aff is your business, but I like specific links for negative arguments. On case, I love a good impact turn, but I’ll settle for any offense. In terms of DA choice, I think you benefit from reading high magnitude impacts most of the time, because the aff likely outweighs systemic DAs or has systemic impacts of its own.

For criticisms, I just want to understand what is happening. Most of the time that’s not a problem, but don’t assume I’ve read your lit or understand the jargon. I would prefer if you can articulate your criticism in accessible language in CX. I tend to prefer a K with a material impact, but I can vote for impacts that are less material if they’re explained well and interact with the aff impact in a meaningful way.

Negative procedurals should be limited to topicality if possible. T isn’t a voting issue because of “rules”. It’s a voting issue because of how it impacts debates. I default to competing interps and don’t usually hear a good justification (or even definition) for reasonability. I will still weigh based on reasonability if it is explained and won.

Spec, speed bad, and norm-setting arguments (like disclosure) generally don’t appeal to me. I understand their importance in some strategies and sometimes they are required. If someone refuses to slow down, I understand the need to say speed is bad. But I don’t care about rules, I care about how people are being treated – so make speed debates be about that. Spec and norm-setting arguments should be about the impact on research practices, education, and fairness in rounds.

2AC/1AR theory is not my favorite. I want debates to be about the aff case and when the affirmative debater decides to introduce additional issues, that often takes away from discussion of the aff itself. I know sometimes people go too far, and you have to read condo or delay bad or whatever. That’s fine. But use your best judgement to avoid reading theory in unnecessary situations and when you do have to read theory, keep the debate about the aff if possible.

I expect clear interpretations and voting issues for theory shells. I’ve noticed that this is not always the case in the NFA-LD theory debates I’ve seen, and teams would benefit from a specific statement of what should and/or should not be allowed.

Negative debaters should prioritize impact framing and delineate a path to the ballot for themselves. I have seen quite a few debates where the NR gets bogged down in the line-by-line and the aff wins by virtue of contextualizing arguments just a bit. In your NRs and 2ARs, I’d like to see more comparative analysis and focus on what my ballot should say, rather than exclusively line-by-line. You still need to answer and account for arguments in the line-by-line, but absent a clear “mission statement” for your speech paired with necessary analysis, it is hard to vote for you. Aff debaters can’t go all big picture in the 2AR. You have to deal with the line-by-line. I can’t ignore the NR and let you give a 3-minute overview. Get short and sweet with your overview. Clarify your path to ballot and then execute that strategy on the flow.

NSDA General

I’ve heard many things referred to as “cards” that are not cards. A card needs to be a direct quotation, read in part (marked by underlining and highlighting) with a citation and a tagline that explains that argument. Present it in this order: Tagline, Author/Year, Evidence. Referencing a study or article is not a “card.”

You should be reading cards in debates. And you should be prepared to share those cards with your opponents. If you’d like help learning how to cut evidence into cards and how to share those cards quickly with your opponents and judges, I’ll gladly walk you through the process – but there are many resources available to you outside of me so seek them out.

Seek out clash. Don’t say “my partner will present that later” or dodge questions. Find the debate and go to it. We’re here to answer each other’s arguments and learn from the process, so let’s do that.

Time yourselves and each other – you should keep track of your prep time and your opponent’s prep time and time every speech in the debate. This is a good habit that you need to build.

NSDA-LD

Values and value criterions are a weighing mechanism for evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications. Thinking of negative values as “Counter Values” that answer the aff value makes a lot more sense to me. You don’t have to do this in your round or on your flow, but it should help you conceptualize how I think about these debates.

I have not judged many plan-focused rounds in NSDA-LD, but I’m open to that if that is your style or you want to experiment. If you do this, I’ll flow top of aff, advantages, and neg positions on separate sheets like I would in a policy debate, and you can ignore the stuff about values above.

I am open to the less traditional arguments available to you. I love to see the unique ways you can affirm or negate using different literature bases than just the core social contract and ethics grab-bag.

Public Forum

I don’t have a ton of specific notes for PF. Check out the general section for NSDA and feel free to ask questions.

I like when the aff team speaks first. It makes debates cleaner and encourages negative responsiveness to the aff. You don’t have to choose first if you’re aff and like speaking second. But keep it in mind and do what you will with that information.

I don’t flow crossfires. I pay attention, but you need to bring up relevant crossfire moments in your speech and explain why they matter for me vote for them or include them in my decisions.

Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear.

Do what you do best.

Couple of side notes:

I likely have a higher threshold on theory debates than some judges, but that also doesn’t mean you should shy away from it. I will certainly vote on abuse. If you just really like going for theory, I will also vote on a position that doesn’t necessarily have proven abuse, but proves some sort of standard that would set a precedent that you argue is bad. Just remember, it will be harder to get my ballot on theory for theory’s sake.

Extinction probably won’t happen, so you need to have really good link stories if that’s your style. Probability > Magnitude.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.

According to Rob Layne, I’m a point fairy. Basically, the way it shakes down is I give the top speaker in the round a 30/29 and then rank everyone. Don’t be an insufferable and rude human, I will dock your points.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m sure I’ve been called a “K-hack” at some point, but this is false. While I ran a lot of critical arguments, they weren’t particularly good. With that being said, I’d prefer a straight up debate, but am by no means to opposed to good critical arguments. My advice for critical arguments.

1) Name dropping/jargon are not substitutes for an argument. Example- “That creates a simulacrum.” That’s a tagline. Tell me how / why.

2) Rejection doesn’t solve. I’ve been rejecting patriarchy for years, but that doesn’t mean sexist people in debate stopped saying I vote with my emotions, that I just don’t get their arguments, or I’m not very smart. It also hasn’t stopped them from interrupting me, or leaving during my RFDs but staying for men’s. Point being--Tell us how to reject. Do we burn the system down by creating chaos? What alternative system can we use? Are there organizations that seek to dismantle the same system you’re critiquing? How does this function within realism? Do you give people a language with which to discuss a system? Is there are a counterplan text that could solve your K?

4) Explain your solvency, and tell us what the world looks like in the post alternative world.

5) Your framework should do more than attempt to exclude your opponents from the round. It should also tell me how to evaluate your position.

Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but I think they need a clear framework with an interpretation and standards. Couch your argument in the topic someway, even if that means you explain why the topic is rooted in an ism, and justify why that is aff ground and not neg. No, the topic is not just a springboard for you to talk about whatever you want. The cool thing about debate is you get to develop an argument/justification for doing/saying what you want, so do that. Additionally, don’t exclude your opponents from going for a policy with your framework. If you’re really frustrated with the ism that is occurring in the topic, your goal should not be to prevent the neg from participating. As far as “projects” (I hesitate to call them that because of the negative connotations), I’m down, but again, please tell me why the topic shouldn’t be discussed. If your argument is that debate is ableist, sexist, racist, etc, if possible, explain why the topic is also rooted in that ism and then use that to discuss the debate space. That way your opponents may have some more ground.

Performance based arguments…

I’m fine with them, but I need to know how to evaluate them.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Again, higher threshold. I prefer proven abuse. Competing interpretations is probably your best bet.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

PICs are a good strategy. The opp should identify the status IF they are asked to, otherwise it’s fair game. Perms should be functional in my ideal debate world. If you’re going to go textual comp you’ll probably want to run more theory than you would with functional telling me why I should prefer it. I love CP theory so read it.

Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

I think as a courtesy, you should always give a copy of any plan text or counterplan text, especially if asked. I don’t care if teams want to share anything other than that.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

Procedurals. Framework, if necessary. Then the substance. I default to the impact debate.

How do you weigh arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I look to probability, first. Then magnitude. Finally, timeframe. If you want me to vote on huge impacts that are incredibly unrealistic, you should warrant exactly how these impacts will occur. Not some x country is pissed, the US gets involved, boom, big explosion because some random action causes a war in which rational actors would absolutely have to use nuclear weapons and it would cause a dust cloud that covers the sun. Although I did this, it’s because I had no idea if what I was saying was actually true.

Other Things

Have fun, make me laugh, be nice. Care about what you do, your words matter. Feel free to pander to me with Tom Hanks references.

Hi! I’m Zach. I debated for 5 years of NPDA/NPTE parli (4 at Cedarville and 1 at SIU) and this is my 6th year coaching/judging. I've been coaching for McKendree since 2017. Here are some of my many thoughts about debate:

- I will flow the round and make a decision based on my flow. I will skip flowing your speech if you insist but I will not evaluate arguments that I don't flow.

- You won't get a 30 unless you give a perfect speech. My average is 28.1 with a standard deviation of 0.6. 27 is the floor unless you do something offensive.

- I've gone back and forth on this a few times and I've decided the best use of this space is just to tell you what I think I'm a good/bad judge for. Standard caveats apply, you should really just do what you do best, don't read something just because I listed it here, but this is what I've learned about myself to help you pref me. I also keep a Google doc with stats for every round I judge.

- Good judge for: topicality, big-stick affs, topic-specific disads, advantage counterplans, K affs that do the work on the flow, framework teams that do the work on the flow, Nietzsche, antiblackness arguments, conditionality, impact turns, pessimism based arguments, defense, creative interpretations of the topic, fast-paced debates, teams that stake out their ground and defend it

- Medium judge for: politics, process counterplans, soft left affs, Marx, Foucault, D&G/Bataille/most other Eurotrash, Buddhism (unfortunately), counterplan theory, novelty, teams that win by tricking the other team, probably anything else I didn't think to list above or below

- Bad judge for: K aff teams that think I'll autovote for them for ideological reasons, framework teams that think I'll autovote for them for ideological reasons, Lacan/psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, any argument that posits that rocks and/or animals are people, fact or value affs

- It will take a Herculean effort to make me vote for: spec, AFC, any other theory that makes me roll my eyes (e.g. must pass texts at X time), RVIs

- Will not vote for: negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff, any theory if the other team wins a we meet, arguments about something that happened in another round/that I cannot verify

You may know me previously as Caitlin Smith or Caitlin Addleman. She/her pronouns.

Experience:

I coached with the University of Minnesota (fall 2017 - 2022). I debated 4 years (2013-2017) of NPDA/NPTE parli for Wheaton College and 4 years of LD in high school. I have also coached policy at the UMN and LD at Apple Valley High School.

Ethics:

I care deeply about debate, about equity in it, access to it, and very much believe in the power it has to change lives. I take my role as an educator seriously, which means I am always happy to chat about or answer any questions related to debate, from theory to substantive arguments. Additionally, I consider the moral/ethical questions of debate to be a constitutive feature of the activity. As such, I refuse to check my status as a moral agent at the door. I will, and have (albeit rarely), voted down arguments that I consider to be seriously morally problematic, regardless of what’s on the flow. While my standard for doing so is high, I take as axiomatic that every person has intrinsic and immutable worth - if I feel that your advocacy or representations seriously impinge on the worth of someone in the room, that will affect my decision. This does not mean that I won’t vote for arguments I don’t like or ethically agree with (I do that all the time); rather, I simply will not hold myself to voting on the flow if I feel someone in the room is being done violence. If you have any questions about my standards or threshold, please ask me.

A Note on Tech:

I believe that the technical aspects of debate are tools we use to allow us to understand and engage with the substance of arguments more deeply. I therefore do not think that tech is a substitute for substantive engagement. I value more highly arguments that engage with the opposing positions substantively than ones that merely do so technically (while to do both is truly masterful debate). Put simply, substance > tech > truth.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed and will clear you if you pass my threshold (which is unlikely). Please be aware of how the online nature of debate constrains speed by paying attention to whatever chat feature we have available for people saying speed or clear - and please make accommodations as necessary. Please say all plans/CP’s/T-interps/alts/etc. slowly and twice.

Weighing:

Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to, although in absence of any weighing arguments, I default to probability first and will have a substantially lower threshold than most parli judges to vote on systemic/materialized/highly probable impacts (given any arguments being made that I should prefer them). This does not mean I will not vote on nuclear, disaster, etc. scenarios, just that I will not accept prima facie an unwarranted claim that those impacts outweigh all other things if your opponents are making arguments to the contrary.

AD/DA/CP Debate:

I have broad knowledge of economic and policy issues (my knowledge skews more heavily towards the K). Thus, I will be largely limited to my understanding of what you put out in a given round. If you’re clear, there shouldn’t be a problem, just don’t expect me to know what various terms or abbreviations mean off the bat or grant you internal warrants without clear explanations.

Theory:

Win the debate on whatever layer you would like. My threshold to vote on theory is determined by the extent to which a clear impact on the shell is articulated and weighed. I also believe that standards should be contextualized to your opponents’ position. I find great problems in reading generic reasons why policy is good against non-T affs because I very much believe that theory should be about bringing questions of how debate ought function into the conversation, rather than forcing certain ideas out. This doesn’t mean don’t read theory in those situations, but that, if you’re going to, I will hold you to a high standard. Finally, I have a lower threshold than most parli judges for we-meets: if they meet the text of your interpretation, I do not consider a remaining violation to be a priori offense (as in, it’s still offense, but without an interpretation it does not function a priori, absent additional arguments that it should). If you have questions about what this means, let me know.

Kritiks:

I debated lots of K’s and write lots of them with my team. I love them. I particularly love when they are clear on what the alt does and what a world of the alternative looks like. I really hate chicken-and-egg style root cause debates and would much prefer to hear substantive debate about the issues in the K. Please don’t assume I know your literature (just because I read K’s doesn’t mean I will understand your K) . I will vote on what is said in the round, not my prior knowledge of your particular author.

Performance:

Debate is both a game and the real world. Bringing real world issues to the forefront within debate rounds is simultaneously extremely important and extremely difficult. It definitely creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door. The one thing I like to be clear in these debates, therefore, is the role of the judge. I don’t mean that you have to include me in your movement, make me feel comfortable, or anything like that; I mean expecting me to evaluate what I’m supposed to do at the end of a debate round, with many moral issues on the table and no framework to deal with them, has the potential to give me a major panic attack. I don’t say this because I anticipate any such problem, but simply because it is a very real concern for my mental health and I want competitors to be aware.

Speaker Points:

26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

1. Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
2. I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Descartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
3. Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
4. RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
5. A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
6. Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

1. You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.

2. The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.

3. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.

4. Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.

5. Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Take what you will from the comments below, and don’t hesitate to ask for clarification.

Pronouns:

He/Him/They/Them

Positions:

Procedurals/Theory: I am a big fan T/Specs/Theory type arguments, but rarely see teams collapsing to these positions (which I think is a necessary strategic decision to win these types of arguments in front of me). As for types of specs I’m less/more sympathetic to: I don’t find over-spec or under-spec particularly compelling arguments (point of clarification: by under/over spec I mean blanket spec positions not the individual specs that would fall under these categories such as aspec fspec espec etc.) although I am willing to listen/vote on over/under spec. I do really like topicality (as long as you aren’t running 5 of them and simply just cross-applying the standards and voters without new articulation of how those standards/voters function in conjunction with your different interpretations). I also think that conditionality is a great/true argument, but only in particular scenarios. I am far more sympathetic to conditionality arguments if there are multiple advocacies that cause the affirmative to double-turn themselves (meaning don’t run condo just to run condo, run it because you think there is actually a strategic advantage being leveraged by the other team). I prefer articulated abuse, although I will vote on potential abuse, and I default competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Kritik: I am fine with critical debate on either side of the resolution, although I prefer the K Aff to be rooted in the substance of the resolutions, that being said, I will listen to any justification as to why you should have access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology (meaning your framework should not just function as a way of excluding other positions, but actually inform how to evaluate your advocacy), your links contextualized to your indictments (some generics are fine, but it should include a breakdown of how the other teams position/mindset perpetuates the system), and an alternative that can actually resolve the harms of the K (meaning there needs to be very clear solvency that articulates how the alternative solves/functions in the real world). I don’t think rejection alts get us anywhere in the debate space, unless it is rejection on word choice/language (in which case I think those grievances are better articulated in the form of a procedural) or you clearly explain what that rejection looks like (in which case you should probably just use that explanation as your alternative in the first place). Permutation of the K alternative is perfectly fine, but I think on critical debates I need substantially more work on how the perm functions (especially in a world where the links haven’t been resolved). I am rather familiar with most of the K literature bases, but still think it is important for debaters to do the work of explaining the method/functionality of the K, and not rely on my previous knowledge of the literature base.

Disadvantages: I like a good DA/CP strategy, with a couple of caveats. The first is that the disadvantage needs to have specific links to the affirmative (generics just don’t do it for me), I am far more likely to vote on a unique disadvantage with smaller impacts, than a generic disadvantage with high magnitude impacts (although I will obviously weigh high magnitude impacts if you are winning probability). I have a rather high threshold for politics disadvantages, but if you can tell me which senator/representative will vote for which policy and why, I am far more likely to buy into the scenario (specifics are your friend on ptix).

Counter-Plans: I am fine with almost all types of counterplans (+1, pics, timeframe, etc.) but think they often need to be accompanied by theory arguments justifying their strategic legitimacy. I also think that mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over simply having a net benefit/disadvantage that makes the position functionally competitive. I am fine with all types of permutations with justification (again often needs to be accompanied by theory). My threshold on perms are sometimes low, but I think that is because they are often under-covered, so knowing that you should be spending a great deal of time answering/going for the permutation if you want to win/not lose there.

General Notes:

1. Status of arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer (don’t give them the run-around, and if you aren’t sure just say dispo).

2. ALL “Text/ROB/Thesis” should be read twice, and made available for the other team.

3. The order you give at the beginning of your speech is actually important. I flow exclusively on paper, so switching between sheets/having them in the correct order helps me follow along. I completely understand that you have to switch up the flow mid speech sometimes, but you need to clearly signpost where you are (especially if you deviate from the order given).

- Additional Note: It causes me a great deal of physical pain to flow numerous consecutive high speed debates. Swings and tournaments that occur directly after one another (like NPDA/NPTE) are difficult for me. While I will still flow everything you say (regardless of speed) I have a very strong preference for debates to happen at a more moderate rate of speech. Which leads nicely into:

4. Speed: You can go as fast as you want in front of me, that being said, I’m not sure if going fast for the sake of going fast is always the best strategic choice, as your word count probably isn’t much higher even if you think you sound faster. I will "clear" and "slow" debaters, within reason, but competitors are ultimately responsible for making necessary adaptations.

5. I will listen to literally any argument (heady, aliens, personal narrative of a farmer from Wisconsin), doesn’t really matter to me, but please don’t put me in a situation in which I have to evaluate/endorse advocacies or authors that promote/have caused the mass death of people. Also, as far as identity politics go (this maybe should have gone in the K section) I think that debate is a great platform to talk about your own person experiences, but I think it’s important to note that oppression is often intersectional and is articulated/experienced in different ways. I think forced disclosure of experience/identity in order to interact with your position can be potentially harmful to others, and “trigger warnings” only work if you give people time to exit the room/are willing to punt the position.

6. DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to being witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather listen to you actually debate. Overall I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want.

Experience:

4 years policy debate in Kansas, 4 years parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. 2 years Assistant Debate Coach at Arkansas State University. 4 years Assistant Director of Debate at Whitman College. Currently the Director of Debate & Forensics at Whitman College.