My name is Val and I would say I have a lot of debate experience. I did policy debate for 1 year in middle school and 4 years in high school. I was a part of the Bay Area Urban Debate League (BAUDL) and went to most national tournaments. I also went to debate camp all four years I was in high school . I was a flex debater so I ran both policy and kritik/performance arguments. I do not have a preference for arguments. I will vote on who did the better debating regardless of what arguments are presented. I try to leave my personal preferences outside of the round.

However, below I've left my preferences/opinions on certain arguments just in case any team is interested in seeing what my thoughts are.

Topicality/Framework:

I ran topicality/framework a lot in high school, it was one of my favorite arguments to run on the negative against K/performance affs. I think that if a team chooses to run this argument or go for it in a debate round it's important to really stress the significance of topicality/framework. If you can convince me that your voters are important in regards to the round and in general debate, I'll vote neg. However, personally I don't believe that T/framework is a voter, it's hard for me to be convinced it is.

K Affs/Performance Affs:

My favorite. I love judging rounds that have K affs or performance affs. The only thing is that you'd have to really break down what solvency looks like in regards to the aff. You'll win me easily on the impacts of the K but you'll have to do the work on proving what solvency looks like for the aff and what spill over looks like.

K's on Neg:

This is also one of my favorite arguments on the neg. I'll usually vote on the K if and only when links are strong and there's a good alternative to the K. As in, you can explain what the world of the alternative looks like and how the permutation fails on the aff's end. I'd also appreciate a good impact calculus as well.

Disads/CP's:

I'm familiar with disads/counterplans but I did not run them as much in high school. Just make sure that you're clear on what the links are and how the counterplan is mutually exclusive in regards to the aff. Not a huge fan of the politics disad, however, if you explain it well and there's clash I could vote for it.

Yes, put me on email chains: allenkim.debate@gmail.com

Top-level:

1. Do what you do best... Although my personal debate career was nothing to write home about, I've engaged in a lot of the literature bases the activity has to offer, from reading exclusively Policy Affs at the start of high school to performing Asian identity Affs towards the end of high school/in college and giving lectures on pomo stuff as a coach. At a bare minimum, I will be able to follow a majority of debates.

2. ...but write my ballot for me. Judge intervention is annoying for everyone; the best debaters in my opinion are those that identify the nexus questions of the debate early on and use where they are ahead to tell me how to resolve those points in their favor. That involves smart comparative work, persuasive overviews, incorporation of warrants, etc. that I can use as direct quotes for a RFD.

3. Speed is fine, but in the words of Jarrod Atchison, spreading is the number of ideas, not words, communicated per minute. I will say clear once per speech and then stop flowing if it remains unclear.

4. CX: I'll flow portions I think are important. Tag-team is fine, but monopolization is not. I would prefer that questions about whether your opponent did/did not read a piece of evidence happen during CX/prep, but this practice seems to have been normalized during online debate—which I am begrudgingly okay with.

5. The only particularly strong argumentative preference that I have (other than obvious aversions to strategies involving harassment or personal attacks) is that I will not vote for warming good. I won't immediately DQ you for reading it, but I will not sign my ballot for you on it. My research concerns how to work against climate denialism in the American public, which I find difficult to reconcile with voting for authors like Idso. I'd like to see the debate community phase out this "scholarship" as soon as possible, and I definitely don't want to have to listen to it.

Specifics —

Policy Affs - Great. I love a detailed case debate and will reward teams that engage in one.

T vs. Policy Affs - Love it, but if it's obvious you read your generic T shell solely as an effort to sap time, it loses most of its persuasive value for me. Specific and well explained violations and standards are key; to vote for you, I need to understand why your model of debate is preferable, not just why your interp evidence is better. I find myself about 60-40 partial to competing interpretations.

CPs - Two quirks: first, I prefer when the block elaborates on Solvency deficits to the Aff that the CP resolves instead of just relying on a large internal/external net benefit to make the CP preferable. I believe it's strategic to do so because if the Aff wins a low risk of the net benefit, the desirability of the CP vis-à-vis the plan gets thrown into flux—paired with the reality that most good 2ACs will include analytical reasons why the CP doesn't solve the Aff. Second, I think that CPs that could result in the implementation of the plan (i.e. consult, delay, process) are probably abusive, which makes me more conducive to theory arguments against them. These biases are far from absolute, but you should be aware of them.

Given no other instruction, I will not judge kick the CP.

DAs - I dig grandiloquent OVs with smart, in-depth sequencing/turns case arguments that decisively win that the DA outweighs the case (and vice versa). The link story and the internal link chain are the most important for me; the more specific your link evidence, the better. Zero risk is possible.

I'd love if more Aff teams were bold enough to link/impact turn DAs, it certainly makes for more interesting debates than four minute UQ walls.

Ks - The best 2NCs/blocks I have seen here typically involve 1) extensive contextualization of the links to the 1AC or the Aff speech acts, and 2) more generally, a high degree of organization that strategically chooses specific areas of the debate to extend/answer certain arguments. On the first: while evidence quality obviously matters a lot in terms of the analysis you can do, I'm also a big fan of references to/direct quotes from Affirmative speeches and CX to analytically develop the link debate. On the second: I think many speeches on the kritik get overwhelmed by the intensive burdens of both explaining their own positions and answering the 2AC and end up putting everything everywhere. In contrast, well-structured speeches that do things like explaining the links under the perm or putting the alt explanation before the line-by-line to 2AC alt fails arguments provide a great deal of clarity to my adjudication of the page.

The two points above also demonstrate that I am not the best judge for particularly long overviews. In most scenarios, having substance on the line-by-line where I can directly identify where you want each argument to be considered is much better for me than putting it all at the top and expecting me to apply it on the flow for you.

Lit base wise, I'm less experienced with "high theory" arguments (e.g. Baudrillard), so pref me accordingly. The Leland teams I've worked with have mainly gone for cap/setcol/race-based Ks, so that's where my personal familiarity lies as well.

K Affs - Ambivalence is a good word to describe my thoughts here. I think that debate is a game with pedagogical benefits and epistemological consequences, and that Affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution/provide a reasonable window for Negative engagement. What that means or where the bright-lines are, I'm not entirely sure. Subjects of the resolution and even debate itself may have insidious underpinnings, but I need to understand what voting for the advocacy/performance (if applicable) does about the state of those issues. As a judge, I find myself asking more questions than before about what my ballot actually does; providing the answers through ROB analysis and explanations of the Aff's theory will serve you well.

FW - Both 2NRs and 2ARs are most likely to win my ballot if they collapse to 1-2 pieces of offense that subsume/turn what the other 2nd rebuttal goes for and are ahead on a risk of defense. For example, a 2NR could win a strong risk of a limits DA to the Aff's counter-interpretation with a well-articulated predictability push that it's a priori to any educational/discursive benefits of the 1AC, paired with a sufficient switch-side debate solves component to reduce the gravity of exclusion-based offense. A 2AR could win large impact turns to the subject formation of the 1NC's interpretation of debate that implicate the desirability of fairness/skills, followed by an articulation of the types of Neg ground that would be available under their interpretation that resolves residual fairness offense. There are many different ways in which this type of 2NR/2AR can materialize, and I believe I'm an equally good judge for fairness/skills/movements—so do what you're best at!

I place very high importance on the 2AC counter-interpretation. This stems from a belief that framework is ultimately a clash between two models of debate, and the counter-interpretation is the first point in these debates where I'm given explicit constructions and comparisons of them. Negatives should capitalize on poorly worded counter-interpretations, using their language to create compelling limits/predictability offense and articulating reasons why they link to the Aff's own offense. Affirmatives should aggressively defend the debatability of the counter-interpretation, outlining a clear role of the Negative and being transparent about the types of Affs that they would exclude to push back against predictability.

Theory - In general, I have a relatively high threshold for rejecting the team; this doesn't mean I won't vote on theory, it just means that I want you to do the work. There should be be ample analysis on how they justify an unnecessarily abusive model of debate with examples/impacted out standards.

I don't have any specific biases either way on condo. I'd strongly prefer if interpretations were not obviously self-serving (e.g. "we get five condo" because you read five conditional off this particular round); while I understand this is at times an inevitability, it's also not the best way to make a first impression for your shell.

Lay - If judging at a California league tournament/a lay tournament of equivalence, I'll do my best to judge debates from a parent judge perspective unless both teams agree to a circuit-style debate.

If you get me on a panel and some of the other judges are parents/inexperienced, PLEASE don’t go full speed with a super complicated "circuit" strategy. It’s important that all the judges are able to engage in the debate and render decisions for themselves based on the arguments presented; if they miss those arguments because you’re going 700 WPM or because they don’t know who this Deleuze person is, you are deliberately excluding them from the debate, which is disrespectful no matter how inexperienced they may be. I’ll still be able to make decisions based off your impact framing and explanations, so cater to the judges who may not understand rather than me.

Last thing: please be respectful of one another. I hate having to watch debates where CX devolves into pettiness and debaters are just being toxic. I will reward good humor and general maturity. Have fun :)

If your name is Hannah Lee and you are reading this, you are amazing, have a nice day

My name is Amanda Tobey. I debated for J.P. Taravella High School, for UCF and George Washington. If you are reading this I am probably coaching/judging for GDS. Use this as a guideline for what to run in front of me, and the end of the day most debaters will do what they do best anyway so just do it well and I’ll vote off of what you tell me to.

 

I am now retired. I recently taught middle school policy and public forum for GDS, but as they are novices with no circuit to compete in, I am not that caught up on literature for any current topics. You have been warned*

If you have questions for me: Amandathetobey (at) gmail (dot) com.

 

GDS Invite: updated 9/23/17

Sorry for the late update! Some of this was on the wiki. I just updated this to make my disad and K preferences more open. 

PFD THINGS

At the heart of things, I am a Policy debater who is very comfortable with PFD as I have taught and competed in it a bit. I value tech over truth.

 

• You need warrants
• You need links and internal links
• You need impacts
• If you are extending something you need all of the above
• weigh stuff/impact analysis

 

 

 

Policy Things

After judging a few debates on the 2015-2016 topic these are things I've been saying after every round:

1. Perm texts should be specific

2. SHORT o/v's in rebuttals are your friend (and mine)

3. Organization counts

4. Impact out f/w, T, and theory if you want me to vote on it.

Short but not so sweet:

Love: theory, T, topic specific (IR) disads, and high theory/regular k’s.

Like: case, adv cps, pics.

Tolerate: politics, identity-based args (ask me about this if unclear)

Hate: any spec arg (you will lose speaks), card clipping (potential loss if proven)

  Theory(Framework):

I love theory, I think learning about why we debate the way we debate is important. I was both a cheating 2N and a lying 2A so you do you. I think theory is fluid and changes round to round. I default to competing interps. I like to hear the history of the arguments (i.e. condo and how in the 70’s one off was abuse but in 2002 seven off was the norm) this is important to understand why my ballot matters in these rounds. Please highlight things in these debates that I should focus on (i.e. examples of non-abuse, examples of in round abuse) and/or try not to make these debates messy. RVI’s are almost always shitty. DO NOT RUN SPEC ARGUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME- even if you win on something else your speaks will go down for it. Front-lining is your friend. I default aff framing for framework and this may or may not be a pre-req to theory or T- please keep at least part of these debate alive in the last rebuttals because this is an important questions that should be resolved by the debaters. (look to counterplans for exceptions)

 

Topicality:

As with theory, topicality is awesome. I used to run really abusive affs and I loved slamming affs for being abusive. I have a medium threshold for voting on extra-t/effects-t, just spend time on it. I’m slightly more truth oriented on T than theory but I still rely heavily on my flow. Affs should have a plan txt that is enacted by the USFG- I am more amiable to wacky plan txts than straight up plan advocacies. Whether that plan txt has to be fiated…..is debatable. I default to competing interpretations and I am very impressed with teams that keep T debates clean.

 

Case:

If you need another sheet of paper for something like an overview- tell me please. I love card analysis more than new cards. Smart arguments are good arguments, and I will evaluate smart analytics against bad cards. Be clear in overviews, this is your aff, you know it better, don’t forget that. I’m also fine with squirrely things like not going for your aff, case arguments used in theory debates, ect.

 

CP:

Counterplans are counterplans.if you want me to judge kick you have to tell me and then justify it depending on the theory in the round. I am slightly against multiple plank counterplans and think theory can check back. That along with 50 states and Lopez, I think theory has a good place and I slightly favor an aff ballot. All other counterplans are completely tab and fair game. Please don’t rattle off perms like it’s your job, they should be separate; they should have specific texts with cards if you want to make me super happy. That being said, I sometimes lean pro aff on most all perm theory (except severance).

 

Disads:

Oy. So I i used to be pretty meh on politics disads. Now,  I am a lot more open. I really love a good topic disad. That being said, I will totally vote for any disad, you just must: 1. Keep the debate clean 2. Spend time on it and the entire story 3. Write my rfd. Not one sentence (They dropped the link debate). I mean tell me the impact of that and how that means the 2ar is screwed and has been since the 2ac. I know cutting hyper-specific link cards is a pain, but it goes a long way.

 

Kritik:

My small amount of time in college made me more disillusioned with the K but I am getting over it. I am most familiar with security, cap, GBTL, and Nietzsch. I have no issues voting for k's.  Including high theory stuff.

Performance: I think debate is an academic space and a unique one. Only in this space do academics spread ideas, talk about foreign policy, flow, fiat stuff, ect. I think we can talk about x’s rights anywhere to anyone, but policy prescriptions are unique to this space. Thus, I do not like things that take away from the precious time and space that is policy debate. You should justify how it’s policy prescription or relates to it. General performance and identity don’t meet that standard and I will be very likely to (but not definitely) vote on framework in these rounds. (edit: given our current political climate I can see a world in which this is more "policy" and this I am more open to it)

Exceptions: If someone is racist/sexist in a round, you have impacts that are fiated, or if you are responding to a team that is performance with “but you don’t include me”

 

Cheating:

I encourage you to record rounds, if someone is clipping cards or cheating in any other way, I will punish them. Bring it up during the round. Make a theory arg.

 

Tech:

Jumping isn’t prep, all teams must have access to all evidence. I will allow 2 minutes per team per computer malfunction, after that it’s prep. I keep prep, you keep prep, we all keep prep! You may have to remind me of high school times. Act like you know how to work your computer/stand/space even if you don’t. I may have my computer out in rounds. I will not record anything without your permission and will give you my FULL attention during all cx’s and speeches.

 

Speaks and other important things you should know (and speaks):

My name is Amanda, this is policy debate, please don’t call me Mrs. Tobey or “judge”. Be friendly, act like you've known your opponent your whole life. I like a “cool” style of debate. That being said I was also very passive-aggressive and sarcastic which is fine by me, but should you get too aggressive and make me uncomfortable, speaks will go down. If you want warning for anything tell me- I think it’s noble to know what you need to work on and would love to help but after one warning, if it is something that is bugging me, it will affect speaks. I view speaks as 75% how you say something (clarity, ect.) and the structure you say it with (2ac’s shouldn’t put T at the bottom) and 25% actual smart arguments (that impact turn was a good idea). 

Partnering- I very much value my partner and I expect you to, too. I’m fine with open cross but do not cut your partner off if it’s their cross, do not over tool your partner, do not be a dick to your partner please.

Finally, if you ask me something that I already put here (not including clarification) I will be annoyed which is not a good way to start the round. I took the time to write this so you have the best chance of adapting, take the time to read it. If you show me good flows after the round (like as soon as the 2ar ends) I will add .2 to speaks.

 

So I basically stole this form Shree Awsare- I think it's a good representation of speaks.

< 25: You were offensive or obnoxious and deserve this.

25: No arguments past constructives, no spreading or bad spreading, no strategic thought of usage of the aff/neg constructive.

26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents- bad ethos and bad spreading.

27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims- badish ethos, okay spreading.

28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers. okay ethos, good spreading.

28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. Solid spreading, okay ethos. You use examples and don't just read pre-written blocks, you contextualize.

29+: You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.

30- You did all of the above and you made a connection. Somewhere in the debate (or at multiple points) you looked at me and made a topical one-liner or said something that changed the way I viewed the debate.