Tabroom.com

Kanellis Invitational

2020 — Iowa City, IA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Joseph Brower Glenbrook South HS 6 rounds None

Michael Cho Hire 4 rounds

Sydney Cohen Glenbrook North 6 rounds

Tommy Cuezze Barstow School 6 rounds

Ethan D'Alessandro Iowa City West 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 6, 2021 at 5:16 AM CDT

Please add me to the email chain: epdal@umich.edu

Pronouns: He/Him/His

O/V

Sophomore at the University of Michigan

Debated all 4 years in HS (2 years 2A, 2 years 2N)

Low topic experience

Short

I was a more policy focused debater in HS, this means that I do not have an innate understanding of the kritik you are running (except for things like Cap, Security)

This does not mean that I will not vote for Ks, just that you will have to explain it

I probably lean a little neg in Framework/T-USFG vs K aff debates

Impact comparison is super important, as is judge instruction on what the most important parts of the debate are

Long

Kritiks — I have not really read a lot of the lit which means that the explanation and application of your theory will be very important, if I am unable to understand it, it makes it a lot more difficult to vote for it/realize why you are winning

K affs — I’ll vote for them and try to be as impartial as possible while judging these debates, that being said, I probably lean a little neg on T-USFG in these rounds

Topicality — I think that legal precision probably outweighs debatability, if the topic is bad it isn’t the aff’s fault. Please extend a violation and standards in every speech you are extending T, even if they dropped it.

Theory — The neg does a lot of shady things with CPs, don’t let them get away with it. I will default to whatever people say/win on whether to reject the argument not the team, winning reject the argument is probably a lot harder on condo debates than others.

The case debate is very important, especially if you are not going for a CP. It is a very underutilized area of debate and a good job debating case will earn you good speaks.

Make the ballot easy — impact comparison and judge instruction will get you far in close rounds, tell me where I have to look first and why it is the most important or I will have to default to the other team’s instruction/figure out myself what is important

Dropped arguments are true arguments to the extent that they have a warrant and an implication (i.e. i.e. "They dropped circumvention" < "They dropped circumvention, Trump can use 49 other programs to sell arms to that country, means the aff can't solve permanently”).

I’m 95% tech over truth, blatantly offensive things like sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated.

Postround me all you want — just be respectful and understand that at the end of the day I will not change my decision. I will do my best to explain my decision to you, and answer your questions.

Run whatever crazy strat you want, ultimately debate is a space where we can all talk about cool topics or things that we are very passionate about/interested in and have fun.

If you have any more questions, just email me at epdal@umich.edu

P.S.

1—You only have to explain what the rehighlighting says and insert it --- if you want to read it, that's up to you but I don't think you have to (and if you do you don't have to explain it, its just a card at that point)

2—The number of conditional words that a multiplank CP with all planks conditional generates if N is the number of planks is (2^N)-1, if you're actually interested, ask me about it

Maeve Ella Washington 6 rounds

Tim Freehan Oak Park and River Forest 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 28, 2024 at 8:14 AM CDT

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the Neg. Harder sell on the Aff.

--Quality of Evidence Counts. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the tean NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great with theory debates.

--I value Research and Strategic Thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts.

--Utter disdain for trolly Theory args, Death Good, Wipeout and Spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

More often than not, I tend to gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err Aff on theory unless the Neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. I will become sympathetic to Aff Theory ONLY if the Neg starts kicking straight turned arguments. On the other hand, if you go for Condo Bad and can't answer Strat Skew Inevitable, Idea Testing Good and Hard Debate is Good Debate then don't go for Condo Bad. I have voted Aff on Conditionality Theory, but rarely.

2023-2024 EDIT:

**That said, the Inequality Topic has made me add an addendum to my aforementioned grievance about being on my lawn: running blatantly contradictory arguments about Capitalism, Unions, Growth, etc. are egregious performance contradictions that I will no longer ignore under the auspices of conditionality. Its not that I am changing my tune on condo per se, its that this promotes bad neg strats that are usually a result of high school students not thinking about things they should be before reading the 1NC. Its pretty easy to win in-round abuse when a Neg is defending Unions Good and Bad at the same time. I encourage you to try.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. To that end, I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to Neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err Neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object Fiat, please. Or International Fiat on a Domestic Topic.

Otherwise, International Fiat is a gray area for me. The Neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and New Affs make me lean Neg on theory.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on Framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your Aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn Framework, beat back a TVA and Switch Side Debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote Neg on Kritiks vs Policy Affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised College Debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote Neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as Ontology, Root Cause Claims, etc.

I am not a great evaluator of Framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses Education Impacts the best.

Topicality

Because it theoretically serves an external function that affects other rounds, I do give the Aff a fair amount of leeway when the arguments start to wander into a gray area. The requirement for Offense on the part of the Affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the Aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The Negative must prove that the Affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic is unlimited to a point beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

David Griffith Oak Park and River Forest 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 8:00 AM EDT

David Griffith

Coach at New Trier

Debated at Oak Park River Forest and the University of Kentucky

Add griffithd2002@gmail.com and jordandi505@gmail.com to the chain.

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky, please feel free to ask me via email or at tournaments. I also (most likely) have Kentucky Debate stickers on me at any given tournament, so if you want one, let me know.

The following is the only information that you must know. The rest of this paradigm is just organized ramblings that may or may not be helpful.

Conditionality is good---I will vote neg if the 2AR is only condo. This is neither a prediction nor a challenge. It is a threat. Every other theory argument is fair game (including yes/no judge kick), but I will never punish the neg for advocacies that the 2NR does not extend.

Organization is more important than style or substance---if you are unclear, refuse to number, do not signpost, make arguments in long, intricately worded paragraphs, or fly through analytics at a million miles an hour, I will miss arguments. I will never use the speech doc to fill in holes because debate is communication activity. If I miss an argument, that is on you because debate is a speech activity, not a reading contest. I always try to make it obvious that I am not able to follow you through both verbal and non-verbal cues.

I have very few argumentative preferences---other than my hatred of theory, I hold very few predispositions when it comes to arguments informed by evidence of any kind, whether that be cards, personal experience, or something else. The only thing I must know by the end of the debate is why you should win. Put another way, I value execution more than substance. I do not read very many cards. I do not assign arbitrary importance to single lines not impacted out in final rebuttals.

How do you get the decision you want from me?

Tell me what to do in every place possible---robust judge instruction is the only way to avoid catastrophic judge intervention. Rather than force the judge to find the win for them, the best debaters tell the judge both why they win and the other team loses. This is aided by a clear, cohesive, and consistent narrative through the debate. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments, particularly relative to the other team's arguments. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points. I only read cards when it is absolutely required because of a dispute over evidence quality, qualifications, etc. I do not read cards to fill in gaps on my flow.

Explain the implication of technically concessions---the bar I use for this is that I have to be able to explain to the other team what the implication was of them dropping a certain argument. Often teams will assert that things like "turns case" are dropped but won't say what this means or what the argument even is. If you truly believe something is conceded and important enough to jump up and down about, you are leaving me to my own devices to figure out the extent to which that argument matters. The most often reason that I sit on elim panels is because I, right or wrong, often have a different understanding of technically conceded arguments than the other judges. The way to avoid this is by arguing concessions as if the other team will win full risk of every other argument and explaining why I still vote for you (this means arguing conceded links as if the other team wins link defense to the other links, theory as if the CP is better than the plan, or rollback as if the aff wins solvency). Otherwise, relative risk could come back to bite you.

What can you do change about your debating to maximize your chances of winning?

Complain about new arguments more than usual---the bar is on the floor. I think new 1AR arguments have gotten out of hand. If the block informs me of its deliberate choice not to make certain arguments because of 2AC errors/concessions/to avoid new 1AR arguments, I am very likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever new 1AR nonsense occurs. For example, if the 2AC says "perm do both" but does not explain why it solves the net benefit, the negative does not have to answer it. Further, if the 1AR then explains why it shields, the 2NR can just say the explanation was new. For the aff side, I willing to entertain the idea that the 1NR does not get new impacts to the DA (or even give the 1AR add-ons in response). Just call these things out when you see them, and the debate will become much simpler.

Don't pander---as much as being pandered to boosts my ego, I would much rather see people do what they're comfortable with. Debating with personality and confidence is infinitely more likely to boost your chances of winning than your argument selection. Debate is a persuasive activity, and I would be lying if I said it was possible to sever presentation from technical debating. If you debate your best, everything in this paradigm, including my stylistic preferences, go away.

Make complete arguments, and refuse to answer incomplete ones---it is not the 12-off 1NC that makes me angry, it is the 2AC that treats each off-case equally. If the 1NC doesn't even try to read a link, the 2AC does not have to say no link because fully conceding every other component of the DA doesn't matter unless if the link is zero. If the 1NC reads a link to a different aff, you should only say "no link" in the 2AC. If the 1NC doesn't say the CP solves the case, the 2AC does not have to say it doesn't unless you are afraid that once explained, the 1AR will have to overcompensate. I consistently see 2ACs that will accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time outcarding the 1NC. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

How should I approach debates involving planless affirmatives?

Shallow debating will favor the neg---I find that teams will often repeat lines of argumentation that they assume to be true without explaining them. For neg teams, this is oftentimes asserting that fairness is an impact without any of the explanation required to prove such a claim, and for aff teams, this usually looks like asserting some structural problem with debate and/or the topic without explaining why that problem exists/why the aff solves it. This is where my bias comes in: because I am more familiar with the neg side of things, when underdeveloped, I am more likely to intervene for the negative simply by virtue of the fact that I have only been aff in these debates like 4 times roughly 6 years ago, and I do not have as much of an intuitive grasp on how the aff arguments apply to the neg ones as I do of the inverse.

You don't need to adapt---I'm agnostic towards both the "best impact" to framework and the "best" way to answer it. I don't view framework debates as distinct from anything else and try my best to maintain the same conventions of judging that I do in every other debate.

Focus on internal links---what I mean by this is that teams seldom disagree with one another about whether debate has some value. The question that each team should try to answer in front of me is how we can maximize debate's value wherever it exists. A good portion of the final rebuttal needs to be dedicated to explaining why the model that you have forwarded does that better than the other team's can. This may just boil down to "do impact comparison," but I find that framework debates are more engaging to watch and easier to evaluate when teams explicitly focus on comparison as opposed to making large, structural claims and trying to get me to connect the dots for them.

What should you know in debates where the neg goes for the K against a policy aff?

Vagueness will favor the aff---I'm a terrible judge for teams that rely on dropped tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply explaining it.

Very good for the link turn and perm---I would much prefer to judge link turn/perm debates than whatever you'd call buzzword-laden 2ARs about utilitarianism. I often find myself questioning why alternatives solve link arguments. If you read a 1AC full of pre-empts, I strongly prefer you go for those rather than gesturing at the world being complex and saying the case is true as an abstraction.

Here is a list of thoughts related to counterplans.

Judge kick is my default, I guess?---does this even matter in the year of our lord 2024, where no one goes for "links to the net benefit" and very few teams have full-throated defenses of permutations against anything but the slimiest of process junk? If no one tells me to kick the counterplan, I guess I'll kick it, but I'm a very easy sell on the argument that I shouldn't.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. The 2AC cannot drop CP solvency if CP solvency is not argued by the 1NC. The same is true for the 1AR if the 2NC does not explain the CP. The neg burden here is not unreasonable, but I have seen enough decisions hinging on this issue recently that I feel the need to say this explicitly.

Not great in complex competition debates---these tend to be the debates that go over my head the most. I find myself voting neg a lot just because of technical concessions and a lack of 2AR judge instruction inviting intervention based on my general neg bias. Moreover, I am not intimately familiar with the inner workings of functionally and textually non-severance partially-but-sometimes-fully intrinsic permutations, and I require extra hand-holding in the 2NR/2AR on that particular issue.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if the aff has a short-term impact that requires certainty. If I can't explain what impact that is, the deficit doesn't matter.

Theory ideally justifies a perm, not a ballot---I can see myself voting on most theory arguments. I don't love these debates most of the time, but I get it, cutting cards about CPs is hard work. I prefer that theoretical objections to CPs are phrased as justifications for competition, as those debates seem much less arbitrary than the latest flavor of "X CP is bad because it solves the case." That being said, this really only applies to process CPs, so I understand the utility of a theory 2AR in every other situation.

Will I vote on T against a policy aff!

Absolutely---some of the best debates I've watched, judged, and have participated in involved T. Good T speeches earn very high speaker points. I don't really care what the T argument is as long as you explain it compellingly.

What is plan in a vacuum?---seriously, someone tell me. How do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. This is not to say that plan in a vacuum is completely unwinnable in front me. Rather, I am not a fan of writing vague plan texts that lack a clear mandate, reading a 1AC that defends potentially untopical action, and then going for plan in a vacuum as if the 1AC deliberately read an advantage/solvency cards about something the plan didn't do.

Predictability matters vastly more than anything else---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. This also means that I believe that precision is possible. Certain people in debate have convinced themselves that one definition cannot be more "precise" than another. Tell that to a lexicographer, and they will laugh in your face. This is what T debates should be all about. While I agree that "random court definition" is not a desirable model, there is always a debate to be had over the applicability over those "random court definitions," and the case facts, context of the definition, and outcome of the opinion certainly are relevant when reading the resolution. In past debates with insufficient impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR, I have intervened in favor of the team that more convincingly articulates predictability as an internal link because of this view.

The aff should go for reasonability---this is the ultimate conclusion to my disdain for limits. Most neg impacts to T can be taken out easily enough that offense about substance crowd-out can outweigh them.

What if I have the misfortune of needing to go for the status quo?

This is where I am the most neg biased---I am better than average for believing the world is better now than it is post-plan. I'm generally bad for structural uniqueness arguments if there's adequate link debating by the neg, and I am such a sucker for case defense that even weak DAs end up doing enough for me to win.

Evidence quality matters---this is in the DAs section of the paradigm because it is where it matters most. Far too often, teams read lots of bad cards that gesture at vague economic concepts for a few rebuttals, tell me to read the cards, and then don't look alarmed when I conclude that the cards sucked. Debates over bad evidence result in more intervention, particularly when that evidence is under-explained by the 2NR/2AR. This means that if you're going for the status quo with a DA that doesn't have the best evidence, you cannot afford to let your cards do the debating for you.

Thumpers are boring and cowardly---mostly applies to politics on this topic. "There are other bills in Congress" is not a link nor a uniqueness answer to the politics DA. You have to explain why your thumper implicates the DA or is not priced in by the neg reading a uniqueness card.

Be smart---I am not a particularly smart person but know one when I see one. Smart arguments as an alternative to getting lost in the cards will not only increase your chances of winning, but it will also boost your speaker points. Knowing stuff about the world is really cool.

How can I get better speaker points?

Be yourself---the worst form of overadapting is when serious people try to be funny or funny people try to be serious. I love debaters with personality and reward them with speaker points much more than I do anything else. Show me you want to be there, and you'll be fine.

Any thoughts on impact turns?

Impact framing matters more than impact defense---I am more than willing to pull the trigger on impact framing even with unmitigated impacts from the other side. I am not averse to stomaching a nuclear war if animals come first or risking the heat death of the universe if future generations don't matter. I think people care too much about impact defense in this debates when it rarely matters. Invest more time in explaining how I should decide the debate than assuming I can follow the implication of every technical drop exactly how you envision I shoudl.

I have no thoughts on the substance of impact turns---everything is fair game. It is virtually impossible to get me to toss an impact turn without substantive refutation. If you can't explain why spark or wipeout or warming good is incorrect, you deserve to lose because the majority of impact turns are academically ridiculous and/or philosophically inconsistent.

Why is your paradigm so long?

I like reading long paradigms when I am bored. I put a lot of care into judging and like to learn about how people think, so I try to make my paradigm reflect both of these values. Plus, I judge enough debates to be guaranteed an audience, so I might as well take advantage of it.

I also think paradigms are mostly unhelpful (this extends to my own). The best way to learn how a judge thinks is to have them judge you and to ask questions after the debate. Most judges, myself included, don't really know how they judge debates until they're in them. The length of this paradigm reflects a series of observations that, if adhered to, would make it easier to predict how I would vote.

I struggle to get rid of parts of my paradigm. I update it whenever I'm bored because that is what spending a long time on debate will do to your brain. As a debater, I hate paradigms that don't provide helpful information about why a judge thinks the way that they do. I figure that having a long paradigm is the best way to avoid being unhelpful, because the more information I include, the clearer my thinking should be to the people I am judging. It also forces me to adhere to the procedures I explain, theoretically resulting in more consistent decisions over time.

For LD.

Strike me if you go for tricks and/or theory. Do not take me high if you don't read and defend a plan. I have read some philosophy and have a decent understanding of much of what is read in LD, but I do not intuitively understand how some of it applies to debate, so I may need more explanation than the normal LD judge would for some of the more complex stuff (think: the more premises in your logic equation, the more explanation I need to understand why your argument is sound).

Amy Liao Iowa City West 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 31, 2021 at 8:34 AM CDT

For prefs

- I debated in high school for 3.1 years (the .1 being freshman year) at Iowa City West. Currently a freshman debating at Northwestern (although I just joined the team like two weeks ago so take that for what it's worth). I was/am a 2A.

- Went to GDI sophomores 5 week and Mich 7 week FFPSVV

- Limited water topic knowledge. I've judged one tournament (Iowa Caucus) on the topic and did a little bit of prep/coaching for Iowa City West

- Very policy-leaning. The vast majority of my experience and knowledge base is in policy-style arguments so I may have difficulty understanding high-theory, abstract, niche, or jargon-heavy Ks (except maybe the fem K because I've been reading a lot of feminist critical literature for a class, but I'd still consider it intro-level material). I have a particular distaste for pomo & baudrillard, but regardless I am willing to vote for any K so long as it is well-explained; just know that my threshold for "well-explained" is high. What will help you either win with the K or beat the K is slowing down in the 2ar/2nr, isolating at the top of your speech the key issues that frame my ballot, and explicitly comparing your offense to your opponents offense on those key issues.

For pre-round prep

Add me on the email chain azl.debate@gmail.com

BE NICE TO YOUR OPPONENT AND YOUR PARTNER IN ROUND >:((((((

Send analytics -- we're online and mics suck sometimes. Even if we're in person, its a good practice.

Speed is fine and good as long as it's CLEAR. Do: slow down on tags, slow down on analytics, signpost, stick to road map, short pause btwn each flow so I can get next sheet of paper, and other good speech practices. Know that I flow exclusively on paper and the faster you go the more unreadable my handwriting becomes.

If there is likely to be a K involved in the debate, read last bullet under "for prefs".

Tech > truth. BUT...

1---no isms good arguments/harmful/violent args

2---I only evaluate arguments that meet my criteria: claim + warrant + impact.

Example:

"Not specifying an agent beyond the USFG in the 1AC is a voting issue (claim) for fairness and education (impact) because it allows for 2AC respecification which spikes out of agent-based arguments (warrant)"

Anything less I will simply ignore.

3---For me to weigh an argument in my decision, it MUST be extended in the final speech, even if it's been conceded by the other team. For example, aff still must extend case/impacts in the 2ar even if neg cold concedes case in the 2nr. Dropped arguments are only true if they are extended.

I will only judge kick if neg wins condo/judge kick in the 2nr.

Be bold!!!! I love non-traditional strategies and will entertain silly arguments. I read the Saudi ally prolif DA on the aff. I put no neg fiat in all my 2ac blocks. I ended my high school debate career extending the God procedural in the 1nr (God solves aff impacts or they are happening for greater good). Note that this does NOT mean I think silly arguments are on-the-whole STRATEGIC, just that they can be fun and I am willing to vote on it. Debater discretion is advised.

Blue is objectively the best color for highlighting.

Tag team cx is fine but please try your best to ask/answer your own questions. Will dock points if you do it too much.

Ins & outs are fine.

+ 0.3 speaks if you say gautam sucks at debate BUT you have to pronounce his name right

& If you make me laugh i'll give you more speaks ahaha ;)

Kalen McCain Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:02 AM CDT

Speechdrop.net is strictly superior to email chains for in-round file sharing, but feel free to contact me via Kalen.pop@gmail.com

I've been involved in policy debate since 2012 and a coach since 2018, currently Head Coach at Iowa City Liberty High School. By day, I'm employed as a sentient Politics DA. (Journalist with a major in political science.)

TLDR: I'll vote on anything you can make me understand. I love DA/CP/Case debates, I'm not a bad judge for the Kritik, but I've been told I'm not a great judge for it either. Speed reading is fine in the abstract, but I do hold debaters to a higher standard of clarity than I think many other judges to. Speed-reading through your analytics will guarantee I miss something.

Detailed Paradigm: everything below this line is background on my opinions, NOT a hard and fast rule about how you should debate in front of me. I do everything in my power to be cool about it, check bias at the door, etc.

Speed Reading: is fine. But don't spread analytics, please. 250 WPM on analytical arguments is really pushing it. I know that some judges can flow that fast, but I am not one of them: my handwriting sucks and is capped at like, normal tagline pace. Otherwise, you're free to go as fast as I can comprehend. I'll yell "CLEAR!" if I can't.

Policy stuff: Yeah of course I'll vote on disads and counterplans and case arguments and topicality. Are there people who don't?

CP theory: Listen, I'll vote on it, but I won't like it. I strongly advise that theory-loving 2As give warranted voters in the speech, and that 1ARs do actual line-by-line rather than pre-written monologues.

Kritiks: are pretty rad, whether they're read as part of a 12-off 1NC or a 1-off, no case strat. I want to be clear, though: I REALLY NEED to understand what you're saying to vote for you with confidence. I find a lot of very talented K debaters just assume that I know what "biopolitical assemblages of ontological Being" or whatever means. I do not.

K affs: are fine. I myself usually stuck to policy stuff when I debated, but I'll hear it out. You should probably have a good reason not to be topical, though. Some people have told me I'm a bad judge for K affs, others have told me I was the most insightful judge at the tournament. (More have told me I was a bad judge for it though, for what it's worth.)

Other debate formats:

PF: PF is traditionally about being persuasive, whereas policy is about being right. If you can do both I'll be impressed and probably give you a 30. Otherwise, I feel like I have a more or less firm grasp on your activity, but I certainly don't have all of its norms memorized.

LD: I have no idea how your activity works and at this point I'm too afraid to ask. Whoever successfully teaches me LD debate will get an automatic 30. Please dumb your Ks down for me, I'm a policy hack.

Congress: Listen, I did one congress round in high school and left it with 0 understanding of how it's supposed to work. If I'm in the back of your room, it means tabroom made a mistake. Because of my background in policy debate, I imagine I'll be biased in favor of better arguments rather than better decorum.

Nolan McWilliams Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 11, 2024 at 4:06 PM CDT

Please include me on the evidence chain at: mcdubs06@gmail.com

My Background and Experience

I debated in high school from 1991-95 at Shawnee Mission East, in one of the states that has a Kansas City. I was a sponsor and assistant coach at East from 1996-2008 and 2019-20. I judged policy at NFL / NDSA Nationals in 1999, 2000, 2006, and 2008; and at NCFL Grand Nationals in 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2013. I judged PFD at NCFL Nationals in 2018. I’ve judged policy debate, LD, PFD, extemp, informative, and original oratory at invitational, state, and national qualifying tournaments for over twenty-five years.

For additional insight on my perspective, I have judged for several years the high school moot court (mock Supreme Court argument) competition held by American University School of Law as part of the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project. I also judge high school and undergraduate mock trial and undergraduate and law school moot court competitions.

I am an attorney for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; I am literally a policy-maker well versed in navigating the challenges of making policy under frequently conflicting congressional mandates. The first thing you learn in law school is that the answer to every question is "it depends." Justice Breyer recently answered the question "is a hot dog a sandwich?" by responding "sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't."

Policy Debate, Generally

Speed: I am handling speed better now we have evidence chains (in legal oral argument, you always submit written briefs to the judge). That said, the responsibility is on you to ensure you are intelligible, especially when using virtual platforms. I am also of the view that all things being equal, rebuttals should be presented at a slower pace than constructive.

Strategy versus Tactics: “Seven Off-Case” is not a strategy. Negatives would benefit immensely from having a bigger picture strategy that frames the story you want to be telling at the end of the round. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run multiple alternative arguments – you should, however, be thinking three moves ahead. Also, time-suck arguments have strong tradeoffs. Both teams get equal time allotment so if the opposing team is wasting time on it that means you’ve wasted time you could have used making winning arguments.

Topicality: T is a jurisdictional issue and nothing more. As a lawyer, I believe in precision, but I am also of the view that high school policy debate affirmatives are not capable of being drafted with the precision of congressional legislation (nor should they be). So I’m willing consider reasonable interpretations. I also am willing to entertain arguments that the Aff is effects topical. I don’t get as excited about extra-topicality because Aff can always drop the offending advantage (by analogy to severability provisions in legislation where only offending provisions are thrown out by the courts, not the entire legislation).

Conditional Counterplans: I an attorney, the concept of burden of proof is fundamental. In my view, when the Neg runs a counterplan, it shifts the burden of proof from Aff to Neg. I liken it to an “affirmative defense” in a criminal trial. Neg can argue inconsistent alternatives because it does not have the burden of proof. If I am the defendant, I can argue that you failed to prove I did it, or that maybe Graham and Maddie did it. I cannot argue that I did it in self-defense, but if you don’t believe that, then Graham and Maddie did it.

There is no rational justification for allowing Neg, which starts the round with the benefit of presumption, to “take back” a bad strategic decision to run a counterplan solely because they are losing. If conditionality were sound debate theory, we wouldn’t spend seventy percent of the last two rebuttals arguing about it. If we view conditionality as a “rules” modification to enhance competition, there ought to be a mechanism for settling that before the round. We don’t change the rules of basketball with five minutes left in the game to benefit the team that’s losing.

Critical Argument: I have never voted for a Kritik. Over the years, I have developed a much better understanding of the various philosophies underlying most critical theory. My legal training also allows me to better evaluate and apply your arguments to the Aff case. Someday I will get there on Ks, but for the time being you run them at your own peril.

My biggest hangups: (1) the lack of a meaningful alternative; (2) related, as a policymaker I do not like being in a “why bother” position – if there is a harm that can be solved, why not do something? (3) Many philosophies underlying critical arguments are extremely complex; most high school debaters (and many college judges) don’t understand what they are arguing or hearing, apply extremely broad theories to extremely narrow policy questions; or just flat out misapply the theories to affs; and (4) As a policymaker I am predisposed to utilitarianism and economically rational decision making. The limitation of Kantian ethics is that the moral compass always points true north, but it tells you nothing about all the obstacles and dangers between you and where you’re trying to get. All along the way you have to make decisions that deontology is, in my view, ill-equipped to guide.

“Performance Affs”: I rarely vote for critical affs. I have never voted for a performance aff. My views on performance affs are evolving and transitioning, but I am still working on a coherent paradigm so you assume the risk if you run one. Hang ups include: (1) I don’t like “why bother?” debates; (2) I don’t like to be guilted into voting for one team or the other; and (3) I am not a fan of dismissing the conventions of policy debate as a meaningless academic simulation. The high school moot court competition I judge is tailored to inner city students in the DC area. The problems involve first and fourth amendment issues. Even though the competition is an academic exercise, participating students are better equipped to advocate for themselves, their peers, and their families, and these students are significantly more likely to have encounters with police and other authority figures implicating free speech, illegal detention, and improper searches.

Policy Debate – Kansas Novice and Open

Please be respectful to one another. Also, a “brief off-time roadmap” should take less than ten seconds. Just state the title of the position so we can organize our flows: “T, counterplan, politics da, advantage 2, solvency” Lastly, I am a policymaker. I view the stock issues not so much as a paradigm but as the elements of a prima facie case. If the aff doesn’t solve at all, it’s pretty straightforward. On the other hand, if the affirmative has a propensity to solve, neg needs a disadvantage to outweigh. Lastly, view every round as a free learning opportunity. At work, we joke that we always reserve the right to get smarter.

Public Forum Debate

My only specific observations are that PFD is not intended to be a college style policy round in a faster amount of time. Also, in online debate only one person can talk at a time. It takes a bit of fun out of the Grand Crossfire, but online when multiple people talk over one another no one is intelligible.

Lincoln-Douglas

[To be provided.]

Charlie Monical Maine East HS 3 rounds

Lara Pick Glenbrook North 6 rounds

Jet Semrick Barstow School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 1:49 AM CDT

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com and taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

Coach @ ADL and Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--My goal is to render a decision without intervention. I will work hard to evaluate and provide helpful feedback for any arguments presented regardless of my opinions. I enjoy judging debates where debaters work hard. Currently, my full time job is to teach and research the high school topic.

--I believe AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem. The NEG should argue the AFF is undesirable. I am a good judge for any strategy that demonstrates the plan is a bad idea.

--Quality of an argument matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition. A dropped claim is irrelevant unless accompanied by a warrant and explanation of how my decision should be impacted.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones. My ideal debate to judge is the topic disadvantage against the largest affirmative on the topic.

--Take the debate seriously. Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Topicality debates where I vote NEG are generally not close because of truthful arguments that are difficult to overcome via technical debating. High quality interpretation evidence is important.

Prioritize the internal link over impact explanation. Give examples and context. Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by the existence of predictable and high quality NEG ground.

Counterplans

Specificity is best. Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard. 1AC re-highlightings are persuasive.

Competition debates are boring and I usually vote AFF because the NEG is reading and not debating. I sympathize with the need for process on bad topics, but economic inequality... give me a break.

I will judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise. I think conditionality is bad, but necessary. I am convinced that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not a good practice. In general, more counterplans equal worse debating and lower speaker points. In truth, I think dispositionality is a better model because it would require more strategic decisions and research on the part of both the AFF and the NEG. However, that does not mean I am more likely to vote AFF in a condo debate. I generally end up voting NEG because conditionality does not make debate impossible and NEG flex is important.

AFF on consult, delay, process, international, word PICs, and fifty state fiat. These are reasons to reject the argument. Debates with a partially intrinsic permutation versus a non-germane process counterplan favor the AFF.

Ideally, the NEG specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

DA and case 2NRs are the best debates to judge. I enjoy debates about the economy and politics. Mechanically sound DA debating is a lost skill. Turns case is most persuasive when supported by evidence.

The AFF should read offense when answering DAs. If the NEG wins an uncontested link argument, AFF uniqueness arguments are less persuasive because there is always a risk the status quo is stable given the certain instability of the plan. The resolve this problem, disprove the internal link which is typically the weakest part of the DA.

Case

A block and 2NR that prioritizes the case is potent given the AFF trend to be efficient at any cost. Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

If you decide to read a "soft left" AFF make sure the framing page is meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I am more willing than most to vote AFF for a small magnitude high probability advantage vs. a low risk high magnitude DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

I want to vote NEG in these debates. I have never been compelled by arguments for why the AFF should not be topical. If the NEG reasonably executes the argument they will receive my ballot.

Fairness is the best impact for T. I am also persuaded by impacts about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist. I think topicality is like a baseball strike zone, its boundaries are not perfectly defined or perfect for either team, but without it the game could not be played in a competitive manner.

In order for the AFF to win, they need to defend a model of debate that provides a valuable role for the NEG, solves AFF offense, and is mutually exclusive with the NEG model. If you are impact turning NEG standards, you must provide a compelling reason why voting for your advocacy resolves your offense.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I will likely weigh the plan. To win, the NEG needs to win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Both teams should have a reason for making a framework argument. The 2NR and 2AR need to give judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose your framework interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solves against the impacts of links that the alternative can resolve. I think the AFF is only responsible for impacts that they make worse.

I think the alternative should materially solve a problem, and am not persuaded by rejection style criticisms. I think linear DAs can be good and can be persuaded by an impact framing argument if you win a non-unique link to the plan.

I am persuaded that the NEG does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and growth DA. The AFF should exploit tensions between pages and generate smart DAs to alternatives or link turns.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

Gautam Sharda Iowa City West 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 21, 2021 at 8:05 AM CDT

Cliff Notes

-yes email chain: gshardadebate@gmail.com

-College freshman. Not doing college debate, but passively involved.

-Did policy debate in high school for 3.5 years from 2017-2020. Went to Mich 7 week twice (CCPW + BFHPRS). Participated in the 2019-20 TOC (Arms Sales). Did not debate in the second half of the 2020-21 season (Criminal Justice Reform).

-Coaching Iowa City West this year in my free time, but not too deeply involved.

-Have judged 5 debates on the Water topic.

-Have judged 5 varsity debates.

-Have judged 14 novice debates.

-You will benefit from going just a tad bit slower than your usual speed this season.

-Keep in mind - I might be inexperienced with the topic/judging, but I am experienced with policy debate.

-More experience with policy stuff than K, but not a hack, and think the division between the two is overstated

-List of generic 2NRs in order from safest to riskiest: Process CP + Politics + Case, Process CP + internal net benefit, Politics + Case, topic K, Impact Turn(s), Topicality.

This is assuming all were equally well prepared and debated - if you either are significantly better prepared or have more practice with one of these, you should probably stick to that.

A specific strategy would be a better bet than any of these.

-That said, I really do find impact turns of all kinds pretty interesting, including spark and death good - but don't read racism, or any other -isms good unless you want negative infinity speaks

-I do not hesitate to vote on "cheapshot" arguments (assuming a complete argument was made, even if blippy).

For example - if the 2AC dropped an ASPEC argument in a T shell and it looked something like:

Then I am likely voting neg so long as they 1 - have the same claim, warrant, and impact in the block and the 2NR and 2 - sufficiently respond to "we get new 1AR responses"

A 1NC shell more incomplete than that OR not meeting the above 2 criteria = I will happily vote aff instead.

-Recent high school debaters that I found to be the most persuasive and would give very high speaker points who have videos of them debating online so you can see what I mean: Rafael Pierry (Monta Vista PS), Dhruv Sudesh (Monta Vista PS), Aden Barton (MBA), Giorgio Rabbini (North Broward MR), Nicholas Mancini (North Broward MR), Grace Kessler (Washburn Rural KP).

-I'd prefer if you demonstrated a basic level of respect for everyone present. Not doing this is the only way to get very bad speaks.

-Tech > Truth / my personal beliefs - but I want to write a helpful paradigm, so I've included the section below.

How you can adapt if you're:

1. Aff

a) Policy aff

vs DA

Do impact comparison I guess. Some judges really hate certain DA's like rider or something, but I'm not so rigid about this, so theoretical objections to DA's need a deeper explanation than "the DA is nonintrinsic so it is not intrinsic and non-intrinsicness is a voting issue".

vs CP

I HATE it when the 2AC spews a bunch of made-up solvency deficits that are just not in the evidence. This is one issue where I really care about evidence quality. Limit yourself to a few, good deficits instead of many non-sensical ones because otherwise when the 2NR says "this is not a real deficit" I will be persuaded regardless of your spin.

I have voted aff on the only condo debate I've judged so far, so it is not a bad choice.

Against a process CP (whatever that means), these are your most persuasive arguments for me (best to worst): a carded solvency deficit, perm + model of competition (functional + textual > functional only), offense, a theoretical objection alone (without a perm + model of competition).

vs K

You should have a defense of the aff separate from its fiated consequences to use as offense vs the K in case you don't win the framework interp of weighing the plan vs the alt - otherwise just don't lose framework, win a deficit to the alt, and win impact comparison = I will probably vote aff

vs T

Reasonability is a viable strategy but you need to at least make a race to the bottom/substance crowd out argument. If all the 2AC says is something like "prefer reasonability -- good is good enough", you're probably not going to win it because this doesn't have much of a warrant or an impact (unlike the ASPEC example above).

Soft left affs

You should absolutely invest in framing. Obviously, you need it to win vs an extinction DA. I will likely be persuaded for evaluating consequences so don't go for deontology or something. Critiques of magnitude times probability alone are also insufficient absent a viable alternative (I haven't found most to be persuasive, but still this is better than telling me to ignore consequences). However, simply saying the risk of the neg's existential scenario is exceedingly low to the point it should be disregarded (Think: Infinitarian paralysis, butterfly effect type arguments) is pretty compelling. There is no persuasive way to actually reduce the risk of the DA except making substantive defensive arguments. This doesn't include conjunctive fallacy, but it could include reading evidence that broadly says the risk of extinction is low. Coupling that with regular DA answers will be best, but I don't think it's necessary.

Overall I will make my decision very similar to how Brandon Stras would (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=41283). TLDR = framing-centric.

b) K aff:

vs T

The most persuasive approach for me would be to have a real counter-interp and win the neg's fairness stuff is just fluffy word salad and your model solves real impacts that theirs does not.

vs K

I don't have much judging experience with these debates so basic things like organization and clear line by line will be vital if you don't want me to get lost in the sauce. I would evaluate these pretty similar to a plan vs CP+DA debate where the alt = CP and links = DAs. Impact comparison would matter if you're saying the alt doesn't solve your offense. Explaining how the perm solves each of the links is important.

2. NEG

a) vs Policy Aff

-K

Absent any instruction, I will evaluate the plan vs the alternative (i.e. the world if the plan happens vs if the alt happens). If you don’t want me to do that, that's fine, but you absolutely need to make it very clear what you want me to do - ideally in the form of a framework debate. If you win an alternative framework, then mitigate any aff offense that isn't about it's fiated consequences and I will vote neg. If the aff wins plan vs alt, then you need to win your alt solves their impact OR your impact outweighs theirs on face.

-T

I don't "default to precision" or whatever. Ideally, you'd have justification for whether precision/accuracy matters most or debate-ability (aka limits/ground) matter most - And unless you win your interp is better on both fronts, this is what my decision will be based on - but absent any instruction on this I will just evaluate their combined risk of offense to make a decision.

You should have a coherent argument for why reasonability is bad, defense to causing substance crowd out, and impact comparison between the two.

-CP

Be liberal with your use of fiat.

I feel pretty confident evaluating most competition debates.

Answer condo seriously.

-DA

I don't have much to say here. Good for generic stuff. Do not really have a super high bar for ev quality generally here (unless told otherwise).

-Case

I probably have a soft spot for good, in-depth case debating... who doesn't?

-soft left

framing please (see under 1. Aff -> soft left for more details) - I would vote aff in a CP+DA strategy where you lose framing and the CP doesn't solve 100% of case (aka zero deficits) - but I would vote neg if you win framing and a non-zero risk of the DA even without any mitigation of aff offense

b) vs K Aff

-T

I'm not a fairness hack so don't be deterred from a skills impact. Overall, I don't have a strong preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter

1 - requires you to explain fairness well (I've seen debates where I'd be underwhelmed by the neg here, although never judged one myself)

2 - win a much higher level of defense to aff arguments

Lastly, if the aff is reading a plan and a counter-interp then you really should invest in winning a violation instead of just asserting one in the block

-K

This can be a strategic choice - Just don't make it super messy in the block please - I'd prefer you have a few clear links/pieces of offense instead of a bunch of shoddily extended arguments/streams of consciousness

Misc

I tried to write a paradigm following advice from https://the3nr.com/2011/09/02/judge-philosophy-guidelines/

Warren Sprouse Washington 6 rounds

Kyle Subade Glenbrook South HS 6 rounds

Vince Woolums Iowa City HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 12, 2020 at 8:52 AM CDT

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

Background:
I debated for Iowa City High 1989-1993 on the prisons, space, and homelessness topics then graduated early. I won lots of rounds and speaker awards. I didn't debate in college because life happened otherwise. I hold BA degrees in English and Political Science with a lot of incomplete Master's level work. I work a full time project management job in the aerospace industry, enjoy bicycling and spending time with my seven year old son. Since 2009 I've been the Director of Debate at Iowa City High and enjoy coaching both casual and highly competitive teams. I am very familiar with the criminal justice topic.

New:
Not using the President's* given name in any form will slightly increase your speaks.

Tl;dr

Policymaker by default. I vote on well constructed, true arguments presented in a technically proficient manner. I'm not the best judge for you if you're an advocacy, narrative, performance, or project team.

Before the Round - VCX:
I'm primarily a policymaker, but I also think stock issues are important. It's my deeply held belief that policy debate requires a plan text and that Affirmative teams should employ the USFG through its subsidiary agencies as actors, as directed by the resolution. My preferences are case debate, counterplan/disad debate, solvency mechanism debate, core K debates.

There is a place for every argument and story, but I'm not convinced that the following belong in policy debate: narratives, performance, personal advocacy, and/or projects. I'm open minded, and don't disinclude the aforementioned out of hand, but if it helps assist in your selection of judge strikes then I don't think I'm very well qualified to judge these debates.

I'm fine with core kritiks, including but not limited to cap/neolib, colonialism, gender, and security, but stray into the margins of philosophy, psychology, semiotics, sociology, etc in front of me at your peril.

I demand in-round decorum. Rudeness and ad hominem fallacy will NOT be tolerated. Debaters who militarize their identity to the point of excluding others will not do well in front of me.

I suppose I'm at odds with the community in that I favor of 'truth over tech', as you will need to win the technical side of debates with truthful arguments to gain my ballot. I can't in good faith hang a ballot on evidence that may be several years old and is no longer a factual representation of the status quo, which is particularly important on this years topic.

You should ask me for clarifications of this entire judge philosophy AND ask any other questions before the round. Absent your questions, I will assume that you have read and understood this philosophy. For example, if you have to ask me "do you take prep for flashing speeches" anytime after the start of the 1AC, well, just don't do that. If you ask me during 1AC CX "hey do you allow tag team CX" then expect your points to suffer. Always ask questions before the round begins. Always. This includes specific questions about my voting threshold etc for any particular arguments you wish to deploy that aren't discussed below.

CX:
I prefer you ask and answer your own questions. I require politeness during cross ex. Cross-ex isn't Crossfire. I flow CX and consider your answers to be binding in all forms. CX is the most important and underrated speech in policy debate.

K's and Framework:
We are participants in policy debate; hence, policy debate briefs -- similar to those that are written to assist theoretical policymakers in making critical policy decisions for the United States federal government -- provide the stasis point for our arguments, which requires scenario analyses geared toward solving real world problems and not simply rejecting or refusing to engage the topic.

That said, I'm fine with kritik debates as long as you articulate the finer points of your argument -- like alternative solvency -- in a way that makes sense without relying on debate jargon. For example, if you stand up in a 1NC and read an IR Fem shell but can't answer any questions about it in cross-ex, then I will not be impressed. If you are taking a theoretical or philosophical/critical approach to the topic, then I find it more engaging when you explain your position in clear, non-debate terms. It demonstrates a level of understanding about the criticism that extends well beyond the debate space, and I support that as an educational endeavor.

Similarly, with framework debates, highlight the advantages or disadvantages to competing methodologies in a clear concise way (no cloud/overview clash, use actual line-by-line) and it becomes a lot easier to vote on framework and/or separately evaluate aff and neg impacts. I'm better with discourse, ethical scholar, reps, and that kind of framework and less okay with meta, ontological, or psych frameworks, the latter mostly outside my studies.

Regurgitating debate jargon on complex academic topics that are (sometimes merely at best) tangential to substantive policy debates does not demonstrate to me that you grasp the underlying issues; instead, it tells me you primarily want to win debates and have selected an esoteric critical and/or theoretical position that other debaters aren't as familiar with in order to do so.

Topicality/Framework:
I've seen some fantastic, well organized T debates, and ones that make my head hurt. Go for T, I will vote on it, but keep the refutation and line-by-line clean. I don't have a clear default to competing interpretations or reasonability, so be persuasive. Explain why you meet, or why you're losing ground and exploding limits. I am not persuaded by arguments that disqualify T as a voter or attempt to impact turn T. It's a STOCK ISSUE and always a voter.

Counterplans:
Yes please!, but be invested in them. They need solvency advocates that compete with and test the Aff's solvency mechanism. Perms, likewise, test the competitive structures of the counterplan and are therefore legitimate. I'm not persuaded by severance theory because the Aff doesn't garner offense from the perm. Instead of reading severance, spend time actually addressing the competition between the plan and counterplan. Finally, I don't default to any theoretical objections either aff or neg on counterplans, but cheaty counterplans do exist. For example, is your process counterplan part of normal means? If so, then perm probably solves. Is States counterplan bad? Probably not, because devolution of powers is a thing. Have country x do the plan? Tricky ... there are a lot of countries and likely an unfair burden to the Aff to prepare for all of them. Etc, see below.

Theory:
On the one hand, I prefer not voting on theory; however, if the abuse is egregious, or the claim particularly compelling, then I will vote on it. I have a high threshold for "abusiveness" claims. On the other hand, I can easily be persuaded that Condo is bad if, for example, a 1NC reads six+ off, of which three are conditional counterplans/kritiks, and then the 2N has the audacity to whine about a 'blippy 2AC'. I have, in fact, voted Aff on Condo! Otherwise, no memorable RFD's on theory. While the Aff carries the burden of winning their case, the Neg has a similar burden to shape the discussion. It's my opinion we learn more by digging deeper into a smaller set of arguments rather than learning very little about many.

Speech and Prep time:
Set up an email chain before the round.

I run a speech and prep timer.

Cross-ex starts when the speech stops, unless either team asks for prep before CX. Prep starts immediately following CX ends unless the next speaker indicates they're ready and a speech has been sent. Otherwise, I stop prep when you have sent the speech.

I'm going to get on a soapbox here. If you use Gmail, then be sure the "Undo Send" feature is off. Then, during the time we're all waiting for the speech to arrive - unless you are the speaker setting up a stand for your laptop, taking a drink of water, etc - everyone in the room should be DOING NOTHING. No looking at your flows/backflowing, no typing on the computer. No separating out your 'card doc' from speech doc. There is a terrible amount of mental prep time stolen between starting CX after getting flows together and waiting for emails, etc.

Further, I support tournaments moving forward with "decision time" because these small minutes of delay really drag a tournament. At any tournament with decision time, I will begin the round promptly at the start time regardless of whether a team is present or not.

Speed:
Generally, I'm fine with speed. I flow on a laptop and type ~80wpm. I'm okay with most things speech-related provided I can audibly differentiate your tags, cards, cites, and analytic arguments. This is particularly true of overviews and 2NR/2AR (see below), but also of any complex argument like Theory or T. The speech act, for all our outside the round research and preparations, is the purpose of debate. Organizing your speech is vitally important to its persuasiveness.

As other paradigms I've recently read point out: 'cloud clash is not a thing' and 50% or more of your speech spent on an overview is just clumsy and unrefined. Do your work on the line-by-line answering the other team's arguments.

Furthermore, I come from a time in debate when people used numbering systems and "line by line" meant answering all the opponents arguments in order. If you use numbering systems, such as on 1NC case "1. No impact: ...", and the 2AC says "off 1NC 1", then I will be mightily impressed and your speaks will increase dramatically. It's so much easier to flow because the Synergy template auto numbers, which is a beautiful thing.

If I need you to speak more clearly, enunciate, slow down, or emphasize your tags, I will call out for it verbally in-round. You get one call out and after that your partner needs to be watching me to make sure I'm capturing what you want me to capture. It's up to you to crystallize your arguments in a meaningful, rhetorical way.

Lastly, judges aren't AI bots, so don't get mad at us when we don't flow every single word of your gale-force word salad overview. Yeah, I type fast, but if your Rate of Delivery is 300 and I'm at ~80wpm, do the math. Especially true if you aren't slowing down your tags and cites.

The RFD:
Now that you've read this far, in-round experiences account for more than my preconceived notions of debate as stated above, including K's, debate theory, framework, and the topic in general provided you make your case or arguments compelling and don't make me do any of the work on the flow for you.

All things considered, I will render a decision on any well-developed argument.

If you have questions about the RFD, please ask them politely.

29+ speaks:
you should definitely break and probably blew my mind somehow;
you did NOT exaggerate, powertag, under-highlight your evidence, including its warrants;
you made cogent link, internal link, and impact calculus arguments;
you properly refuted the nexus question(s) in the round;
you were really easy to flow, with great intonation, inflection, and cadence;
you focused on speaking coherently instead of technically;
you told a compelling story using well-honed rhetorical devices and true arguments, presented persuasively;
you were polite yet assertive in CX and during your speeches and answered/asked your own questions.

27.5-28.9 speaks:
you did a pretty good job answering all the arguments, but you may have dropped some stuff;
you were too fast or too unintelligible, and didn't adapt to me flowing you;
you didn't do as good a job analyzing arguments as you could have;
you exaggerated your evidence beyond what the author intended, or beyond the warrants you read;
you didn't persuade me, you were snarky or needed your partner's help in CX, etc.

25-27.5 speaks:
you did a poor job refuting arguments, or you dropped whole arguments;
you were unintelligible;
you didn't analyze the arguments or perform a cogent impact calculus;
you used ad hominem arguments or were aggressive either in your speech or CX;
you needed a lot of help answering/asking CX questions.

0-25 speaks
you did something I found egregiously offensive (racism, sexism, other bigotries);
you used fraudulent evidence;
you clipped cards;
you forfeit, or left the debate for any of your own personal reasons.

Pet peeves:
I really don't like when a team interferes with their opponents speech or prep by requesting evidence and/or asking for your flash drive back, or by whispering to your teammate so loudly I can't hear the speaker, or by throwing backpacks, laptop cords around, etc. If these are a problem, then your speaker points will assuredly suffer.

Good luck to all!

Login to Tabroom

Kanellis Invitational

2020 — Iowa City, IA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges