MacLean Andrews—Gonzaga Prep

I debated policy in high school and NPDA/NPTE parli at Point Loma. I then coached NPDA/NPTE at PLNU. I am now the Director of Forensics at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA. I mostly coach and judge high school CX and LD now. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round or email me if you have questions while filling out pref sheets (first initial last name at gprep.com)

1.Speaker points

1. 28-29.9 usually.

2.Critical Arguments

1. I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments but nothing will make me cringe more than a bad K debate. In the end it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me what framework I am to use to evaluate the round.

3.Topicality.

1. I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I used to say that I have a fairly high threshold for T but I am finding myself voting for it more and more. If it is the best strategy you have to win the round go for it.

4.Theory

1. I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important.

5.Weighing Arguments

1. I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.
2. I appreciate it when weighing is done in the speeches. The last thing you want is for me to have to weigh your arguments for you.

7.Random Thoughts

1. Speed is great if clear.
2. The round is for the debaters, do what you have to do to win. I will try to adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
3. Impact calc wins debates
4. Debate should be fun.

Policy Paradigm - quick 20 seconds before round are in bullets:

•Prep ends when you hit send on a document or remove the flash drive from your machine.
•Ideologically agnostic, read t, fw, cp, da, k, whatever. I coached and did a breadth and depth of k literature (that was cutting edge back in the day) and am now working with a team that goes 1 off heg. Do you, and your best debating, and I will work my hardest to adjudicate and respect the debate before me.
•Look for strong offense comparison for me to resolve the debate in your favor.
•Email: austin.brittenham@gmail.com


I'm increasingly becoming flow oriented - I'll adjudicated under any framework that a team wins. For this to happen, there must be a portion of the debate where you positively delineate your vision of how I ought adjudicate a round. That said, my default is really about my flow, focusing on the line by line rather than embedded clash will really help me adjudicate in a way which will favor you. I also find myself using my flow to be clear about what the debaters in the round were putting into words for me, rather than would I thought debaters meant by an argument. I flow your words and warrants, if you phrase things defensively, I will think of it defensively, etc.

Optimizing your chance to win - Frame your offense and compare it to the other teams, generally. I think that's the core of debate no matter how you think about arguments in debate. The 2nr ought centralize out offense, compare that offense to the 1ar offense. The 2ar should win some remaining offense and compare it to the neg offense.

History - I debated for 3 years in high school and 4 years in college. I went to the NDT my junior and senior years debating arguments about embodiment, transness, and queerness. That being said my high school debate experience was primarily flex debating. I have a strong respect for the cp/ptx da combo .I've now coached middle school, high school policy, and college NPDA Parliamentary debate and NDT/CEDA policy debate.

I think kritik alternatives should solve the links & impacts they identify. If the critique says capitalism causes environmental destruction, I need to know either how the 1ac/plan being capitalist produces environmental destruction, or how the alternative solves all of capitalism producing environmental destruction. A simple rejection of bad epistemology probably doesn't solve Britain being a capitalist state, but a global violent revolution might. Similarly, why is it that encountering a capitalist in a debate round is bad if that debater doesn't have their hands on levers of power? For me, I just need a coherency among all portions of a critique. To be clear, do a discourse, reps, epistemology, whatever argument, but make sure there is congruence among the 3 parts.

I think that "methods" debates don't necessarily mean that the affirmative doesn't get a permutation. Methods seem permutable to me. Asserting "it's a methods debate so perms" is certainly not an argument because it is a claim without a warrant. To be clear no perms bc methods is a winnable argument in front of me, but my predisposition is the other way and brisk debating on the theory will not end favorably.

Messy debates will often have me resolve in favor of the negative--the 2ar has the chance to clean up the debate but didn't.

Msc Theory - I think that critical affs should either normatively defend something that isn't the squo or have defense of why their speech act/performance generates offense that is unix to each debate round.

I think try-or-die is really vote aff on presumption which seems silly. Like either the aff wins their impacts or they don't, try-or-die seems like a concession that you've lost the impact defense.

I think (logically limited) conditionality is fine and am not generally inclined to vote on conditionality unless there is an in round impact.

Fiat - is a normative question regarding whether or not the aff/plan/advocacy ought happen. This does not mean that it does happen or would happen, if something wouldn't happen in the status quo, that is inherency for the aff. Many fiat debates that I've seen seem to assume other interpretations of fiat. Please explain for me your version and how it operates for me to be on the same page as you, otherwise I will presume this interpretation.

**These are just how I enter into a debate. Please obviously debate and win the arg and I will vote against my feelings.

If this isn't helpful please ask me questions before the round.

hi im kai! I did 4 years of debate in hs for Kamiak and im currently a senior studying computer science at university of Washington with a specializations in algorithms and ai! my debate background is that i did policy in hs and qualled to the toc and stuff. i also have coached policy, ld, and pufo since graduating.

my pronouns are he/him or they/them‏‏ i really have no preference.

add me to the email chain: daikaile13@gmail.com

NOTE: I have not judged debate for like 2 years, so please talk to me like i know legitimately nothing about the topic

policy paradigm

tldr – read whatever you want, im good with anything. I ran args from queer asian poetics to hard right policy affs so just argue well :)

some tips and things about me:

- more flow oriented and im fine with speed

- i don’t think debaters have to be nice, but please don’t be obnoxiously rude.

- i tend to nod my head to things that i am responding well to or if i’m confused it will probably be visible so looking up from the flow or computer occasionally could help u!

- i dont know much about this topic so pls avoid too jargon-y words!

- also it takes me afew seconds to adjust to spreading sometimes so if you could start your speech just a bit slower and then amp up in like 5 second to full speed that would help me a lot thnx!

‏‏‎ ‎

‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎topicality – because i’m not super familiar with the topic if you go for t I would appreciate you slowing down at parts so i can really digest the arguments. in general, im not the perfect judge for t but if you win it you win it

- for aff – the aff doesn’t win reasonability without a counter interpretation, however I think leaning on reasonability is usually the right move

- for neg – a good t debate should (1) have comparative impact calculus on the standards debate and (2) probably have a caselist. I do not think im the best judge to go for contrived t violations infront of because I tend to lean aff in those debates but also if you do impact calc right then it shouldn’t be small bc ur standards have massive implications for the topic.

‏

kritiks – where im most comfortable and have the most experience. but like a lot of k judges, I actually find myself voting against the k because teams tend to just throw out jargon words or find 6 different ways to make a “structural antagonism” link.

- the neg should contextualize the link to the aff, have external impacts for them, and explain why each one turns case and is a reason for competition. the link specificity is what makes k debate persuasive so take advantage of that. that being said, you need to win either an alt that resolves the links or a framework question that resolves your offense while nullifying the aff’s normative mode of politics.

- the aff should probably challenge the alt with both theory and substance, hedge back against self serving framework args, and answer the k contextually with the affirmative (as in don’t let your aff get lost in the muddle of ontology questions, keep it relevant and central to the debate). please just have a coherent strategy like if you are reading a hard right aff, impact turn the k and leverage your aff’s huge impacts. if you are soft left, you might not wanna say heg good but rather go for the perm with link turns and alt solvency deficits as net benefits. regardless, make it obvious to me that you have thought out the kritik prior to the round and have developed a larger narrative as to why the aff is still a good idea.

- as for literature bases im probably most familiar with antiblackness, queer theory, asian id, deleuze, imperialism/set col, and embodiment args. I am fine with Baudrillard, bataille, and psycho debates, but I’ll probably need you to unpack them a little more in cross-x and make arguments past ~we are insurrection and our performance is transgressive~.

‏‏‎ ‎‎

k affs – your aff should probably talk about the topic and should have a competing model of debate. if you are kritiking debate, i'll prob be more persuaded by framework but also if you win you win. embodiment framing? cool. semiotic insurrection? sure, why not. i myself did identity performance affs so I tend to like that avenue a bit better, but if you wanna do some white pomo stuff, and if you can explain high theory args in a way that is palatable and accessible to my feeble stem major brain then go for it! I will say that framing and impact calc is esp important in k aff v fw debates. the aff needs to explain to me why something like minority participation outweighs procedural fairness or how access controls the internal link to portable skills. the same goes for the neg, explain to me how your model of debate can encompass the aff’s offense or how procedural fairness is the only thing my ballot can solve in round. a lot of times in these debates it gets to the final rebuttals and both sides have just really not articulated why their thing is bigger and why it warrants a ballot which makes everybody in the room unhappy so pls try to do impact calc

- also, the neg should probably answer case, even if they aren’t “predictable” and you “don’t have well researched arguments”/ cards - you need to put ink on case because half the time just analytically breaking down how illogical the k aff’s method is can go a long way. I will say, however, I do think that the strat you go for should be tailored to the aff you’re hitting and it’s perceptually disappointing to watch an amazing k aff only to watch the neg stand up and read the most uninspired neg strat ever.

- i actually see myself voting for framework teams a lot because the aff really drops the ball and they let the debate no longer be about the 1ac but rather be about framework. please keep your aff alive and central in these type of debates - do things like extend the performance, explain why your FORM matters and why that warrants a ballot, etc.

- as for neg teams - i lean towards fairness being an internal link HOWEVER i will happily vote for it as an impact if you are winning it. i may be a more k leaning judge, but that also means i’m just as happy to reward well explained and framed arguments against them. but with that i will say - k affs some of the time can be unfair - so you should be too. read 6 off, 3 counterplans, make them go for condo and then go for t and say it outweighs. read their own cards back at them as piks and take advantage of the fact that they invited a debate that is ~unpredictable~. innovative strategies + warranted responses usually results in a win or at the very least much higher speaks

‏‏‎ ‎

disads – I don’t think I really need to explain much for this one but here are some of my thoughts – disad should turn case somehow and links should be contextualized. ptx disads can be really great arguments and I will reward well researched and original takes on the political process of enacting the plan. that being said, I don’t fw riders disads. I do think there can be 0% risk of a disad, esp given than the internal links are already extrapolated lol. case specific disads are always a plus. also, framing rarely is enough by itself to answer the disad bc of turns case args but if you win aff framing with defense/offense on the disad then you are prob in a good place

‏‏‎ ‎

counterplans – aff theory vs counterplans are underused and a necessary check against how abusive cps have become in debate. pics and process cps are probably abusive in truth but its debate so like if you win ur .01% better than the aff then im gonna pick you up no question. aff needs to win offense against the cp AND explain why that outweighs the net benefit.

‏‏‎ ‎‎

‎theory – underutilized in policy and can be really interesting to watch, so here are some of my opinions.

- condo is probably good but anything over 3 is ridiculous

- id rather see you go for substance than theory in a round where you are ahead on both and ill reward your speaks for doing so

- reading a ton of conditional planks that fiat away any solvency deficits is probably bad and I encourage aff teams to beat on this with theory‎

‏‏‎ ‎

case – do it please (esp the k teams out there). good case debate = good speaker points, and affs so often drop warrants in 1nc case answers that you should extend as conceded solvency arguments. and to the k teams, even reading links on case and contextualizing the argument to the specifics of the affs advocacy is enough for me. case turns are easily the sexiest arguments you can make infront of me so please do things like PLEASE read heg bad or china rise good esp when reading a k.

ld paradigm: I'm competent I swear but prefer progressive flavors of ld but I can evaluate traditional ld just fine

I did policy debate in high school and college. I coached policy debate for several years and judged a bunch of debates on the western Washington and national circuits. I’m now in law school, I do some light LD coaching and judging for Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate, and I occasionally judge policy debates for the Chicago Debate League.

Here are some thoughts on how I judge. Where relevant, I’ve separated LD- and policy-specific comments.

1. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I think the best advice for debating in front of me is to be explicit about each of these things. I’m not afraid of saying that I didn’t understand the reasoning (warrant) or importance (impact) of an argument in my RFD.

a. Something that’s “dropped” only is presumed true, for the purposes of the debate, insofar as it was a complete argument to begin with. Suppose the negative doesn’t answer “states aren’t efficient” on the states CP, for example, and there’s no clear explanation (either in the 2AC’s explanation of the aff or in the 2AC’s CP arguments) for why efficiency matters in determining how well a CP solves. The 2NR doesn’t get to answer the claim that states aren’t efficient. But that argument won’t have weight in my decision without an explanation of why efficiency matters. If that explanation is in the 2AR, it’s new. If it’s in the 1AR, the 2NR gets to answer that particular part of the argument.

2. Clarity is king in normal debate times. On zoom, it’s a deity. I don’t read evidence in order to ascertain things I should’ve heard during the debate. I’ll usually yell “clear” twice—after that, I won’t flow what I can’t understand. Don’t read a bunch of analytics or theory arguments at full speed expecting me to flow them all. Make it clear when you’re reading a tag and when you’re reading a card.

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

a. (Policy-specific) I don’t think this means you have to read a plan. It does mean that you have to have some reason why whatever you’re advocating is an example of the resolution. I'm amenable to non-traditional - eg, identity-based - reasons why your advocacy is aligned with the topic.

4. I approach critical arguments technically. A rough approximation of how I think about K debate is: it’s a DA/CP to the affirmative’s rhetorical representations or ontological or epistemological underpinnings. A few thoughts on what makes me more likely to vote for a K:

a. Go beyond saying “all of our links are DAs to the perm.” Be specific—how does the inclusion of the aff’s plan trigger each link, notwithstanding the alternative also being enacted? I tend to think the perm solves many K links—so reading external disadvantages to the perm is useful in front of me.

b. Have a framework claim, even if the 2AC doesn’t make one. I find it difficult to weigh the policy effects of the plan against, for example, a bunch of epistemic-based impacts without some rationale being presented for why those impacts matter.

5. I think bad theory arguments are, well, bad. But I also sometimes am left wondering why a debater didn’t go for theory.

a. (Policy-specific). Conditionality and the proliferation of many abusive counterplans are getting out of control. If it steals the aff, go for theory and/or a perm argument rooted in competition theory (perm: do the aff).

b. (LD-specific). Most theory arguments in LD seem to basically foreclose any chance of the other side winning. Non-starters.

6. I tend to reward in-round debating over everything else. Spin and evidence comparison are both deferred to unless challenged. So make comparisons—comparisons win debates.

7. Debate should be inclusive. If you're debating a team that is significantly less experienced than you, try not to make the debate a technical arms race. Please slow down and endeavor to make the debate one of engagement. Technical arms races will get bad points, engaging debates get great points.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fitzgerald,+Michael

Michael Fitzgerald
Kamiak High School 2007
University of WA BA Political Science 2011

---

Cross Examination Debate Paradigm

I'm a tabula rasa judge with respect to the arguments that I will listen to.

It is important to me that I see an obvious progression on the flow within the round given the arguments made during constructive speeches and questions asked and answers given during cross examination.

Having clear voting issues articulated during rebuttal speeches is more advantageous than not, and having clear ways to comparatively weigh various arguments within the round will help to narrow the bounds for how I arrive at my reason for decision.

I flow the round the best I can, if the speaking is unclear then I will say clear. If I have to say clear a second time speaks will be reduced by a half point. If I have to say clear a third time (this is very rare) then I will grant one less speaker point.

If you have any questions for further clarification of my paradigm it's important that you ask those questions prior to the beginning of the first constructive speech. After that point it is unlikely that I will answer any further questions with respect to my paradigm.

Anything that I do not understand with respect to clarity will not count as an argument on my flow, so it is advantageous to consider slowing down to such a degree that it is clear to me should I state the word clear during a speech.

---

UPDATED LD Paradigm for the 2021 Season.

I was 4A State Champion in LD(WA) in 2006 and a 4A Semi-finalist for LD at State 2007. Most of my experience as a competitor was with Lincoln Douglas debate although I did compete as a policy debater for a year and so I am familiar with policy debate jargon.

Summary of my paradigm:

Speaking quickly is fine, I will say clear if you are not clear to me.

Theory is fine, I default reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given an articulated justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation that is insufficiently contested, then that increases the likelihood I will vote for a competing interpretation. Unique frameworks and cases are fine (policy maker, etcetera), debate is ultimately your game.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. Cross examination IS important, and I do reward concessions made in cross examination as arguments that a debater can't just avoid having said.

I disclose if the tournament says I have to, or if both debaters are fine with disclosure and the tournament allows disclosure. I generally do not disclose if the tournament asks judges not to disclose.

The key to my paradigm is that the more specific your questions about what my paradigm is, the better my answers that I can provide for how I'll adjudicate the round.

The longer version:

Speaking: Clarity over quantity. Quality over quantity. Speed is just fine if you are clear, but I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, etc the entire debate. Pitch matters, if I can't hear you I can't flow you. Excessive swearing will result in lower speaker points.

Theory debate:
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. If I feel like a negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 3 independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a team of people with PhD's to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory on it, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

Cross Examination:
I'm fine with flex prep. Cross examination should be fair. Cross examination concessions are binding, so own what you say in cross examination and play the game fairly.

--- Speaking: The same rules for clarity always apply- if I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28.
You will lose speaker points if you:
1. Use an excess of swearing. If swearing is in a card, that’s allowed within reason. I understand some Kritiks require its use as a matter of discourse, but outside of carded evidence I absolutely do not condone the use of language that would be considered offensive speaking in public considering debate is an academic and public speaking competition.
2. Are found to be generally disrespectful to either myself as the judge or to your opponent. This will be very obvious, as I will tell you that you were extremely disrespectful after round.

You can generally run any type of argument you want in front of me. I generally believe that for traditional LD debate that all affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win (value/criterion), and that the negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation- the burden on either side is different. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently. I’ll listen to a Kritik. The worse the Kritik, the more susceptible I’ll be to good theory on why Ks are bad for debate.

Kritiks that in some way are related to the resolution (instead of a kritik you could run on any topic) are definitely the kind I would be more sympathetic to listening to and potentially voting for.

When I see a good standards debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks really matters in my adjudication of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I don’t like blippy debate. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. In terms of priorities, there are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards (whichever one they decide to go for), and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, replete with warrants and weighted impacts, is the best route to take for my ballot.
I approach judging like a job, and to that end I am very thorough for how I will judge the debate round. I will flow everything that goes on in round, I make notations on my flows and I keep a very good record of rounds.

If something is just straight up factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, don’t expect to win it as an argument.

I'll clarify my paradigm upon request, my default this season has generally been tabula rasa. It's also important to have articulated voting issues during rebuttals.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

I look to several factors to determine what are the best speeches for Congressional Debate when I am adjudicating this event.

To decide the best competitor with respect to speeches I look to speech quality and I consider total number of speeches with respect to if recency is utilized strategically to deliver speeches when there is an opportunity to speak. The more speeches given that are consistently of high quality the more likely that I rank that competitor higher overall.

With respect to speech quality the speeches I tend to give 5 or 6 to have a few important elements. First is the use of evidence. For evidence I am listening closely to if it is primary or secondary evidence, and I'm also carefully listening for citation of evidence to qualify the importance of the evidence with respect to the chosen topic of discussion.

Second is speaking delivery. I'm carefully listening to see if speaking time is used to effectively communicate with the audience. Specifically I'm listening for the use of the word uh, um, overuse of the word like, and also if there's significant amounts of unnecessary pausing during speeches (3-5 seconds). I'm also carefully listening for if there's unnecessary repetition of words. In terms of more advanced speaking delivery things I'm carefully listening for, there's word choice, syntax, metaphor and simile and whether there's an effort being made with respect to vocal dynamics. A speech that is good but monotonous might be ranked 5 while a speech that is of similar quality and employs the use of vocal dynamics to effectively communicate with the audience would likely be ranked 6 instead, for example.

Third is organization. I'm carefully listening to see if the speech is organized in such a way that it effectively advocates for the chosen side to speak on. A speech organized well generally has an introduction or thesis to explain what the speech is discussing, has several distinct arguments, and some kind of conclusion to establish why the speech is being given to affirm or negate the legislation.

For evaluating questions with respect to deciding the best competitor there's two areas of decision happening when I judge Congressional Debate.

Question asking. For question asking I'm carefully listening to see if the question is a clarifying question or if it is one that advances the debate for the chosen side of the questioner or challenges arguments that were made by the questioned. I'm also making an effort to consider volume of questions with respect to participation for the competition. Meaning that if a competitor gives good speeches and consistently asks effective questions when the opportunity is afforded to them to do so then that competitor will likely rank higher than competitors that give good speeches but ask a lot less or no questions.

Question answering. For question answering the important things I'm carefully listening for is if there's an actual answer given or a declination to give an answer. I'm also listening to see if the answer advocates for the chosen side to speak on with respect to the legislation, and if it effectively responds to the question asked.

---

I competed in PF, LD and Policy in high school, and have been judging sporadically for the last 19 years. I don't have any particular argument preference and am most looking for thorough warrants and clash through the round. Final speeches should include clear voting issues. Speed is fine. Please use tag lines instead of citations when extending arguments. This is my first time judging this school year, so please don't assume familiarity with the literature.

John Gunn                                                                                                 Updated: 11/12/17

I was an assistant policy coach for Cornell after debating there as an undergraduate.  I also debated for Saint George’s in high school.

In my own debates, I preferred running semi-topical policy affs and taking a K or PIC in the block.  As far as K authors go, I am most familiar with Nietzsche.

I have run many different kinds of affirmatives and negative strategies.  I will vote for any argument if it is presented well, but I will default to a utilitarian policymaker framework if an alternative framework is not presented.

I think debates should primarily be about the resolution.  Affs that make no attempt to address the resolution will have trouble with T/framework in front of me.  That being said, I can be convinced that your particular aff should be included, and I am down to judge method debates.  Either side will have trouble convincing me that debate is bad.  I tend to think that the state can be an effective mechanism of change.

I am flow-centric.  This means that while I won't vote on an unwarranted rvi that was dropped, I will vote on a warranted rvi that was dropped.  This also means that I will (grudgingly) vote for an argument I disagree with as long as it was debated better than the other side.  I see this as a way to limit judge intervention.  On the flip side, I will not evaluate new arguments in the rebuttals (except the 1NR) unless they are justified with theory.  I can be convinced that some new arguments in the block (or even the 2AC) should also not be evaluated.  It is still helpful for the other team to point out new arguments.  I give the 1AR leeway when answering new K links in the block which do not relate to the original link or the 2AC.

I believe in neg flex.  Conditionality is usually fine and competing interpretations are usually good.  Floating PIKs are usually abusive and Consult CPs are usually not competitive.  Terminal defense can make me vote on presumption, but having offense is way easier.  On the aff, severance perms are usually bad.  Trigger warnings (if applicable) are usually good.

If you are paperless, I will stop prep time when you are done preparing and allow you to save and email/flash calmly.  If possible, have all your evidence in one document.

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

americans may have no identity, but they do have wonderful teeth

Policy

I'm okay with anything as long as you know what youre talking about

Run an untopical aff, run a plan, advocacy or no advocacy, run a k do whatever you want as long as you know what youre running and are prepared to win on theory/t. Make sure you can explain it to me bc im not gonna vote on something i dont understand and also dont assume I know your authors.

If you go for T or Theory you have to explain how it actually hurts you in the world of debate- don't just read a shell/shadow extend it. I want you to do a line by line on your standards and voters or I won't vote for it. Also if you read disclosure theory that's an isntant loss and no speaks. Sorry you're rich boohoo.

If you're gonna run a BS CP like a PIC or a consult you best have a DA and not just an INB.

Dont go for multiple world advocacies in the 2nr. pick one- you can run multiple advocacies throughout the round- but only go for one

If u go for theory, that better be the only thing u go for or i wont vote on it

LD/Pufo

more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW

Hey ✌????

My name is Justin Shaw (he/him/his). I did 4 years of high school policy at Gig Harbor. I am currently a student at the University of Washington (class of 2023). I also wrote the mobile debate app 'PrepTimer'. Thanks for reading my paradigm!

Ideally, I would enter each round tabula rasa (a 'blank slate') without bias or predispositions to certain things. But, alas, I am human and I do have biases and predispositions to certain things. I really don't like having to base my decision on things that were not said explicitly in the round but sometimes I have to. Therefore, I think it is only fair that I disclose what my personal 'defaults' are with respect to debate meta-theory. Everything you are about to read is up for debate.

Feel free to add me to the email chain: realjustinshaw@gmail.com

The Burden of Proof is on the affirmative to show why the plan should be adopted. To do that, they must prove (only if brought up by the negative) that their plan resolves all of the "Stock Issues":

1. Significance (Prove why the plan is important)

2. Harms (Prove there is a problem with the status quo)

3. Inherency (Prove that the plan is not happening now)

4. Topicality (Prove the plan is an example of the resolution)

5. Solvency (Prove that doing the plan will resolve at least some of the harms)

I think including all the stock issues in every 1AC is an antiquated way of structuring your first speech, especially when word counts and speech time is such a premium. But, if the negative contests these issues, I think the affirmative should be able to defend their S.H.I.T.S. If any of the above are proved false, and the neg does the necessary work in the rebuttals to turn this into a voter, that will almost always be sufficient reason for me to vote neg.

The Burden of Proof is still on the affirmative, but the standards have to change slightly. I think there are/will be times when defending the resolution may not be moral or provide tangible benefit to debaters. In these cases, I will borrow the rules of College Parliamentary Debate (where the praxis of debate changes from round to round). In this case, I believe that Kritical affirmatives still must prove (if brought up by the negative) that the affirmative is/has:

1. Significance (Prove why the plan is important)

2. Harms (Prove there is a problem with the status quo)

3. Kritical Inherency (Prove there is some societal barrier that prevents the harms from being solved)

4. Solvency (Prove that the aff will resolve at least some of the harms)

5. Not Tautological (Prove that the aff is NOT immediately and logically true by construction)

6. Not a Truism (Prove that the aff is not something that no moral person could possibly disagree with)

7. Not a Specific-Knowledge Case (Prove the aff is not something that would require the neg to know more about a topic than could reasonably be expected of them to know)

Negative teams may still argue topicality. If the negative proves that the world justified by the affirmative is net-worse than the world justified by the negative, then the negative will win. As before, if any of the above are proved true, that will always be sufficient reason for me to vote neg.

???? INTERPRETATION - I default to competing interpretations over reasonability but you can convince me otherwise (as always; it's debatable). Most teams who run reasonability as a standard never give substantive warrants as to what that amounts to. I find that really frustrating. So, to win reasonability in front of me you have to prove why competing interpretations is unreasonable AND why "good is good enough" is a better standard for debate.

VIOLATION - I value case-specific, carded evidence very highly here. I think of the violation a lot like the link of a disad/kritik, so those rules probably apply. Does this mean you can perm a violation? Yeah probably, but I don't know how that would work. Here are my thoughts on a few specific topicality arguments:

> I think 90% of SCOTUS affs are probably cheating, but I think there is a really interesting debate to be had about the educational benefits of fiat through different actors (ie. Is it better to analyze the outcomes of potential bills that pass through congress, or the outcomes of supreme court decisions in a world of increasing political gridlock? I would really enjoy that standards debate. )

> T-Substantial is probably the most interesting topicality debate when done right. The phrase "substantially reduce" is an adverb-verb collocation where the adverb 'substantially' modifies the verb 'reduce'. This is the same as the phrase "to reduce by a substantial amount" (ie. the amount by which you reduce (as a percent) has to be substantial - rather than the pre-fiat amount). But if you include just one more word, the tone of the phrase changes dramatically. In any case, you are reading a "must be X%" interpretation, I really think it should be from an author writing about policy related to the topic. But this is, as always, up for debate.

> I love topicality double binds. If you can structure a link to a disad or kritik such that the affirmative is either not-topical or they link to the other argument, that is almost always a silver bullet if prepared for well and articulated correctly.

> There is a distinct difference between topicality, framing and framework. Don't call them the same thing. They are all theory arguments about meta-debate, but that's like saying condo and T are the same thing. I think it can be very strategic for the negative team to run topicality arguments in addition to- or in the place of framework. This is especially true if you run it with standards that are not fairness and education (eg. participation, accessibility, etc.).

STANDARDS - If you can run a topicality shell that doesn't utilize fairness or education as standards, then I think that really gives you a leg up in the topicality debate because the vast majority of 2AC blocks are written to answer those two standards. Nobody really thinks about topicality as much as they should, and many of the larger programs just copy and paste their blocks from last year.

VOTERS - If you win that the model of debate your interpretation justifies is better than what your opponent justifies, then you will win topicality. I don't think you have to explicitly say the words "and thats a voter for x and y" unless your the opponent is making claims about why being un-topical is good or shouldn't be a reason to vote them down. So for me, topicality is a voter unless somebody tells me otherwise, at which point I will evaluate the voter debate before I evaluate topicality proper.

NEG - I really love topicality arguments. I think the warrants for the standards debate need to be fleshed out in the neg block. Theoretically, the structure of the block means that negative teams should always win on T. I think one of the main reasons they don't is because of inefficient extensions (repeating what you have already said, not grouping arguments, etc.). If you're going for T, the 2NR should be just T.

AFF - I think the key to beating topicality on the aff is having a good 2AC block and efficient 1AR extension. I find in-round examples (eg. "reading 8-off proves they have ground", "multiple topicality shells A and B are mutually exclusive" , etc.) to be very compelling. If you are a kritical team you should be weighing the educational benefits of the affirmative against their topicality violation arguments. If the 2NR is just T, I will allow the 2AR to drop case and just answer T.

COUNTERPLANS:

PERM - A permutation is a test of competition, if the affirmative wins the perm that is terminal defense to the counter-advocacy. It proves that the net-benefit is not an opportunity cost to doing the plan. It is not a way for the affirmative to claim to solve for the net-benefit as well.

COMPETITION - Severance is probably bad. Intrinsic is probably good.

NEG - The counter-plan has to be mutually exclusive with the affirmative such that the net benefit of the counter-plan is an opportunity cost of the plan. In many cases, this alone does not outweigh the 1AC. A good negative counter-plan strategy will make use of one or more "turns solvency" arguments to the affirmative which prevent me from weighing the affirmative against the counter-plan.

Kritiks- this is the fun part of debate

neg- pls have a very specific link to the aff, the only thing I hate more than a really bad alt is a really general link chain, go cut a card. If you can't explain your alt, you really shouldn't run it. Especially if you're going 1 off K, I need some overviews because the K can get really confusing throughout the long round if you don't, I also think it makes you prove to me you know the story of your K.

aff- I buy a well established perm argument, I think that in the case of a really bad link, the perm really solves. That being said you should be using theory against the alt along with other good arguments. Make the K team do more work than they want to.

Disads- I kind of hate generic disads, I think a lot of people do. Whatever, I will vote on them, if you are really good at telling the story and good on impact calc, go for it. That being said, I LOVE a super well researched ptx disads, if you do the work it will be worth it.

Theory- Debate is a game, so you can argue about the rules. Condo is legit for me, just have good in round abuse to point to. Most other theory is arguable, but do not use this as a last ditch effort to win, it should be established.

Case- I really don't like that the case debate has seemed to go away in favor of another off case position. The neg should really have on case arguments and the aff should be using their 8 minutes of 1AC offense to respond to off case positions.

Unaffiliated

Previously coached University of Washington, University of Puget Sound, Interlake High School, Bingham High School.

Graduated from University of Puget Sound in 2013

Short version

All approaches (policy, k and beyond) are welcome. Do some good research. Be specific with your claims. Tailor your argument to your opponents. You can cheat, but not too much. I am probably about 50/50 on T vs the K aff.

I judge sparingly these days. It is a safe assumption that my knowledge of the topic is, at best, equivalent to a decent google search. What I've written below may no longer be of any relevance, but it's an approximation of what I thought about most when I was judging more often.

Miscellaneous pet peeves

- Saying "cut the card" without marking where it's cut

- Excessive (ie longer than :30) overviews

- Ending prep before clicking "send" on the email chain/before the flash drive leaves your computer

- CXes that don't go anywhere, or that get interesting and are promptly forgotten

- Cruelty/being unnecessarily mean/disrespecting people/using hateful speech

General

When I debated, I typically read a plan and tended to defend it, and went for both Ks and policy strategies on the negative. As a coach, I've worked across the spectrum, both with traditional policy squads and one-off/no-plan teams. I've qualified teams to the NDT and the TOC, and was a CEDA elim participant and NDT qualifier myself.

I have some thoughts about content and style, but at the end of the day, I think both sides of the k/policy "divide" are interesting and worthwhile. Fundamentally, I think debate is a game of research, in one form or another. In "policy" debates, author qualification, evidence specificity, recency, and conclusiveness are all worth referencing and comparing. In "kritik" debates, explanation and application to your opponents' arguments and evidence is crucial. Either way, I like it when debates are reflective of controversies in academic fields, and not just constructed out of ideas pulled from the back pages of newspapers or sketchy timecube-esque websites. I think reading evidence in the correct context and with minimal distortion of its authors' intent is important.

I think that you should respond to your opponents' arguments. How you do that is up to you, but it's much easier for me when you proceed in an order similar to that of your opponent, and make it clear which argument you're responding to. I've judged several debates that were pretty far from this, and while I enjoyed them, I think I'm far less predictable at deciding them.

Plan-focus debate

Excellent! I think well-researched and well-executed technical policy debate is awesome.

Particularly in this context, I think defense matters, and am willing to depart from the offense/defense cult. The last time I sat on a panel was because I assessed a 0% risk of a net benefit to a PIC. I think good internal link defense against advantages/DAs is an underutilized strategic element.

The politics DA gets a lot of hate from people, but if you think you can wordsmith your way through the logical oddities of the argument, I'm probably a surprisingly good judge for you. From an educational perspective, I think it's cool that debaters expend so much energy to keep up with news about federal legislation, and I'm more than happy to reward it as a judge.

Kritiks/etc

Academically speaking, this is probably my comfort zone, but that makes me much more willing to inject my interpretation about what an argument is supposed to say into how I evaluate a debate.

I think talking about the aff (when on the negative) is crucial. This is particularly true of how you explain the alt.

I think role of the ballot args are often arbitrary and self-serving. I think you're better off defending the relative merits of your framing mechanism, but I will probably disregard one-line interpretations that needlessly stack the deck in your favor.

I am open to and interested in alternative models of competition but will default to my interpretation of traditional opportunity cost absent any direction to the contrary. I have, in a couple instances, determined that the aff didn't get a perm, but that was usually because the block out-teched the 1AR on the theory debate, and not because I think that argument is particularly compelling.

Procedurals

I like neg flex. I think, as far as "the rules" go, that the neg probably should get to read a few conditional advocacies, and indirect "contradictions" between them (like the security k and a DA impact) aren't necessarily the end of the world. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, however, for both theoretical and critical reasons. Also, I'm not too keen on the "judge kick" conditionality argument.

I would rather reject the arg and not the team on theory, but I respect the value of theory as an element of a diverse strategy.

I think T debate is a good thing. Real-world relevance or engagement with core debates in topic literature is important. I like T debates that effectively use evidence.

The less generic a framework arg feels (vs the non-traditional/K aff), the more I will like it.

Dylan Thomas

If there is an email chain feel free to include me. - dtdylanthomas10@gmail.com

4 years NDT-CEDA Debate (legalization through NHI), and an additional 4 of HS policy debate. One appearance in each the NDT, and outrounds at CEDA.

I am probably OK with whatever you plan on doing in front of me. At various points in time I have occupied the position of the nontopical debater, the topical kritik debater, and plan-focused policy analysis in my arguments. I've occupied a similar range of positions in my negative debates. I'm going to judge the debate in more or less the same fashion each time: I'm going to ascertain whether the aff has won any advantages, then I'm going to determine whether the neg has won any disadvantages, and then I'm going to compare.

The biggest thing you can do in front of me is clash. Stand up and tell me why your opponents' arguments are wrong. Too often recently I've watched debates that featured an attempted end-run around the debate - either their opponents just didn't get the case, or people are trying to execute some sneaky clever strategy, or something else entirely. In the right circumstances, and executed well these rounds are a lot of fun to watch. Unfortunately this is difficult to pull off, and its rare that the circumstances are correct. Most of the time the correct call is to just out-debate your opponents. (this is distinct from squirrelly, small affs with little link ground. Do those to your hearts content.)

Argumentative preferences

Almost all theory args aren't reasons to reject the team.

Fiat is illusory but so is the alt.

It is easier for me to vote for an argument that I agree with than ones I don't - which means it is very hard for me to vote arguments like death good etc. I straight up will not vote for things I fundamentally believe are bad. Positions such as death good might not be the best read in front of me.

It would behoove you to explain your alt.

I really like case debate. Debate the case. Extend the case. Outweigh with the case.

I generally prefer debaters to ask and answer their own questions - some interplay is inevitable and good (Even if you are not in CX you should not let our partner irredeemably screw up the round, for example), but be careful not to overdo it.

I debated at Ingraham for four years. I was a 2N who went for almost everything at some point.

Don't clip or steal prep. I'll only evaluate the evidence you actually read.

Put me on the e-mail chain - anthonyvavigil@gmail.com

Debate is about you, the students, not the judge. Read what you want/what interests you and I will try to evaluate it fairly. that being said, I have biases.

general thoughts:

Most debates at this level are decided based on dropped arguments. When you're extending these please 1) clearly explain the argument, 2) tell me what its implication is for the debate.

Do line by line and you'll get high speaks.

Any level of speed is fine, just don't use it as a tool to exclude the other team, and be clear.

The 2NR/2AR should tell me how to write my ballot.

Evidence quality is very important to me.

a 1NC without case will put a frown on my face.

specific arguments:

K's: This is what I went most for in my junior and senior year. Framework is important. Links of omission make me sad. The 2NR should extend a specific link to the aff and a coherent impact. The alt should resolve the impact.

Disads: I think the majority of DAs that are read make no sense outside of debate, so telling me the story of the DA is important if you want to go for it. 0% risk of the DA is a thing.

Counterplans: Case-specific CPs are cool. Your CP should have a solvency advocate. I don't think most CPs are cheating, as long as they're functionally competitive.

T: The neg needs to win three things: 1) a violation, 2) that your definition should be used, 3) an impact. I think the we-meet debate is almost always a yes/no question. Impact calc and comparison is important.

K Affs: I think they're important for the debate community and they can be as strategic as policy affs. I tend to think they should be related to the topic. You will have a much easier time debating framework if you offer counter-interpretations of the actual words of the topic, rather than just reject it outright.

ingraham

toc qualled and all that stuff - i'm qualified

i reserve the right to exclude gamers

vincent xiao 6 9 7 at gmail dot com

top level

i won't vote for arguments that are violent to the other team. example: i won't vote for death good for personal reasons because it is psychologically violent to me.

most debates are decided by dropped arguments. try not to have those debates. organization and explanation are critical. if i don't understand the argument or its implications, i probably won't vote for it - this goes both for k stuff and economics. if i don't have the argument on my flow, tough luck. i won't make cross applications for you and you need to explain the implications of arguments. please do line by line, "embedded clash" is a nightmare to evaluate as a judge.

i am just way too biased towards consequentialism. not util necessarily, but i just believe that expected value is true. you can alter the way i calculate that value from policy-style util to something else, but in the end it's very hard for me to ignore consequences.

arguments must have a claim and a warrant. something that matters for me is whether the warrant backs up the claim. an inductive argument that looks like "nazi germany was expansionist, therefore offensive realism is true" is weak and uncogent because the premise does not likely prove the conclusion. that's like saying, "1 ball out of this bag of 30 is red, so all balls in the bag are red." people get away with this too much. i rate system level statistics(established statistical correlation with a high r value) much higher than other forms of evidence, and comprehensive examples(a preponderance of recent and relevant examples going one way) are up there too. your argument relying on a single analogy or a single example is really not up to the standards of the real world.

something i'm still struggling with is how to evaluate these types of arguments when they're dropped. i lean towards being lenient and giving the conclusion at least some weight, but if you piss me off i may not. i expect to get more ideological about this, honestly.

arguments:

t - interp, violation, standards is a full shell. softer on we-meet & reasonability - i'll buy 100% risk of we meet, and you'll never hear me say "any risk of a violation means i vote neg". top level impact analysis is probably the most important thing. i'm honestly pretty good for t - i think lots of topics these days are massive and encourage terrible "functionally limited"(read: there is one theoretically illegitimate cp that solves everything) topics.

- i care about the quality of t evidence quite a bit. i think that literature determines preparation which is probably the best internal link to impacts.

- i hold the 2ac to the 1nc - if the 1nc is a single card and a line about limits, the 2ac can be about that quality and the 1ar can be very new.

da - clear link chains and impact weighing. good defense can equal 0% risk, but that's a very very high threshold and you should not bank on it. tell me the story of the disad. i like it when people go for good, core of the topic disads. i really dislike poorly constructed politics disads, but i understand why you're running them if the topic is really bad. at the very least, please have them make structural sense.

- most links and most uq is not yes/no. you should acknowledge that and work around it rather than pretending it's not true.

cp - run whatever, but i'm probably more willing to pull the trigger on theory than most people. i think negs are probably getting away with too much. if your options are to read solvency deficits you know are terrible or go for theory, probably go for theory. bad cps should be taken down by analytics.

-judgekick should start in the 2nc.

ks on the neg - if i don't get it, i won't vote for it. simple ks like cap or security are no problem. if it's more complicated, i will probably lean aff on "i don't know what this is" if it's poorly explained. even if it is a k i know relatively well(wilderson, mainline setcol, deleuze, agamben, baudy) i dislike being obscurantist because you know the other team knows less than me. i am willing to at least reduce speaks and if it's really poorly explained it's possible i won't evaluate it.

framework isn't always that important - consider what actual strategic value it gets you. i see affs which can directly challenge the thesis of the k waffling around talking about fairness or whatever and i don't like that. to be honest, i probably lean neg on k framework - it just makes sense to me that discursive/epistemological implications of the 1ac should be weighed first. however, if the aff wins that their discourse/epistomology is good(not that hard to win against ks that aren't high theory), i vote aff even though the neg won framework.

the counterpoint to that for the neg is that links of omission make me sad. please have a link to the aff. running abolitionism against an aff that legalizes corporate crime for the economy isn't gonna work, because that aff isn't a reformist strategy. i think this applies a lot for extinction affs vs the k - the neg runs some link that's for soft lefts affs, and the aff just concedes it. please don't do that.

the alt should resolve the impact. i won't do cross application and implicit clash for you.

ks on the aff - i think framework is a good argument vs k affs. you should try to be topical, or at least follow the words in the resolution. i don't really have any ideological views on fairness or anything - i think it's mostly impact analysis. consider going for the k vs the k aff even if you're a policy team.

i will be honest and say that i didn't go for framework much. i didn't hit k affs much, and when i did, i usually ended up going for some kind of k. maybe not the greatest for clash debates, but probably solid for both straight policy and kvk debates

edit for ld:

turns out i understand phil pretty well, but you should probably still go to larp/k debate for me. no tricks though please.

edit for pf(which i keep getting shoved into):

i am a policy judge. four things:

1. i care a lot about tech. arguments in the final focus must be in the summary, and not cross-ex. the summary is not allowed to make new arguments that aren't extending their case or directly responding to a point the other team made. i will not evaluate arguments that aren't extended through each speech, and i will evaluate every dropped argument as presumptively true.

2. i default to utilitarianism. this seems to be a big deal this topic, because everyone reads these authoritarianism impacts. absent a clear reason why preventing democratic backsliding is more important than preventing people from dying, i will default to preventing people from dying.

3. i don't care about stylistic things. it doesn't matter if you spread, which arguments you make, what you wear, etc. absent a compelling reason to care about those things, argumentation always comes first

4. i care a lot about evidence ethics. in policy, it's expected to sent the entire text of the evidence, as well as a link, author quals, etc. you also have to read directly from the text of the evidence to cite it. it's incomprehensible to me that this is not the case in pf.

- time taken to find evidence comes out of the team finding evidence's prep. it should take no time to find evidence(you are allowed to take time sending evidence)

- you should challenge evidence often, and if you find inconsistencies point them out. +1 whole speaker point if people send out speech docs in a policy-esque fashion.

for this nsa topic, i actually probably have more topic knowledge than you because of the 2015 surveillance and to some extent the 2019 executive authority topics.

also, i've judged a lot of rounds but mostly in tournaments that don't show up in tab, locals and stuff.

I have coached policy at Garfield High School since 2014. I have yet to encounter an argument I'm not OK with in a round; it's really about you and how well you explain your arguments and why they should win you the round. I think it's important to be responsive to the specific arguments in the round - don't just read your prewritten overview and assume it works for every debate. I enjoy both policy and critical arguments and have some background knowledge in theory, but don't assume I know your literature. In my opinion, it's your job to tell me how to vote in the round and why. If you leave it up to me, I tend to buy the argument that moral thinking is a prereq to policy making (but I can be convinced otherwise).

I am generally ok with most speed, but make sure I'm flowing if you're blazing through a bunch of analytics you don't want me to miss.

I don't know what "judge kicking" means - are you asking me to decide your strategy for you? I won't do that. Either go for the argument, or don't.

Bottom line: I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you would like to run, and tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round.

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated CX on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college. I've been coaching CX at Garfield HS since 2014. I judge ~50 rounds a year, split between the local and national circuit. We took a team to the TOC in 2021. My day job is as a social science researcher who does a lot of applied research with Indigenous, Black, and BIPOC communities. This keeps me pretty engaged with philosophical and critical theoretical literature, and very attendant to questions of power and equity. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male who was educated and socialized within a Western context, which undoubtedly shapes my epistemic view of the world.

Feelings about specific things:

T/FW: Excellent. Specific and creative violations are more fun to judge than generic ones
DA: Great.
CP: Awesome. Highly specific CP strategies (such as PICs) tend to produce more interesting debates than generic CPs, but they certainly both have their place.
Ks: Excellent. Especially if you can articulate specific links to the aff

Policy affs: Great
K affs: Awesome. I find that K vs K debates are often more interesting than K vs FW debates, but that isn't always the case

Theory: Good. If you want to win on theory, make it more substantive than a few warrantless blips
Disclosure Theory: Not very convincing for me. I think that the open source/disclosure movement within debate has been somewhat uncritically embraced in a way that doesn't fully consider how the open sourcing of knowledge reproduces new forms of inequity (often along neoliberal/service economy lines, wherein better resourced teams are better able to take advantage of the open knowledge economy).
New arguments in the rebuttals: Generally not a good idea. Completely new arguments should not be made in the rebuttals. I will strongly protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR.
Judge Kicking: Nope. Don't expect me to judge kick things for you. Make a strategic choice for yourself.
Overviews and impact calculus: Yes, please. Clearly frame my choice for me at the end of the round, and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Also, 'even if' statements can be super persuasive in the final rebuttals.
Backing up Claims with Warrants: Super important.
Impact Calculus and Overviews: Also super important - I like being told how I should vote, and why you think I should vote that way.
Clipping: Don't do it, I will vote you down for cheating.
Speaking: Please be clear! If you're clear, then I am fine with speed. Clarity is especially important in the online debate format.
Dropped arguments: These flow through as 'true' for the team making them.
Voting: I will vote for one team over the other. Don't ask for a double win (or loss).

At the end of the day, I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not about me. My job is to create a safe and educational space, and to do my best to decide the round based on the arguments rather than on my own beliefs. If you clearly tell me how you think I should be judging, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.