My highest commitment as a judge is making this activity accessible and inclusive. I am committed to developing novices and want to make varsity debate a welcoming environment for students who are moving from novice/JV to varsity.

I understand and appreciate critical and policy arguments and am fine with you arguing about whatever you wish to make the debate about. I see my role as an educator, however, and so will not allow anti-trans, antiblack, or bigoted language or attitudes that would deny the humanity of any participant in the activity. With those ground rules in place, I try to center my decisions on the arguments made in the debate and bracket my own predilections as much as I can. This is an aspiration but I also recognize and try to be reflective about the way my identity and history shapes my thought. It is important not to bracket these questions, even as I try to evaluate arguments fairly and not intervene to tip the scales.

With that said, here are my thoughts on procedural arguments.

Games have to be fair and simulate something we love about life, or be connected to life or they are not very fun. But what does it mean for a game to be fair? Is that the only value I should care about?

I love debate, so access to it is a terminal impact. It is an educational game (or it has been for me) so education is also a terminal impact. But it's a game. So fairness matters.

I don't think any of these three procedural impacts are more basic or fundamental than the other. I just abide in the tension and allow debaters to frame the impacts.

I believe debate is about open inquiry, and I want to allow debaters to test all kinds of claims. Admittedly, if you choose to examine philosophical questions, I will enjoy the discussion. Please note that explanation will serve you in debates centered around complicated concepts. Although I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, I would rather be treated as an informed layperson than a specialist.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years in high school. In college I competed in policy debate for four years at the University of Richmond where I was a three-time participant at the NDT. Since graduating from law school I have been practicing as an attorney in the New York state court system. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. To me, well-warranted arguments extended and explained in rebuttals combined with strategic control of the flow wins debates. Technical proficiency in terms of argument interaction is also appreciated. Well executed link and impact turns are also impressive. It won't change how I evaluate the debate, but in case you are curious, I was primarily a 2A/1N and ran everything from hard right, to soft left, to ironic affs as well as a full range on the neg. My email is jchicvak at gmail dot com.

I am the Upper School Debate Coach at Sidwell Friends School. My email is downesc@sidwell.edu — please put me on the email chain if there is one.

CX

Some stuff you probably care about:

Ks, K affs, performance, and other, non-normative ways of engaging with debate and the resolution are fun and fine in my personal view, but I've voted for framework before and I have no doubt I will again. Even if I think you're being a little bit of a cop about it. I can be convinced of a lot in the space of the round about the proper purposes and form of the activity, but I think the traditional arguments for the virtues of topical, plan-focused, switch-side debate are substantial.

Speed is ok. Clarity is essential. Paperless debate has gotten debaters into some very bad habits, among which is thinking that they can rely on judges to read speech docs to reconstruct basically unintelligible 1ACs and 1NCs. I won't be doing that. This is an oral advocacy competition. It's impossible to articulate a brightline on this but them's the breaks. So consider being conservative on this front. That goes double if the debate is online: you're just flatly not as clear as if we were sitting in a room together and I need you to slow down to compensate for that.

Some stuff I care about:

Cross ex matters. It is a speech, it's binding, we named the event after it, I pay very close attention to it and I firmly believe rounds can be won and lost in cross. It's also just the most dynamic and fun part of the round for me. I have given up on trying to fight for closed cross but just know it's very embarrassing if your 1N can't answer basic questions about the K alt or your 1A can't answer basic questions about your solvency mechanism and if that's obvious it'll be reflected in speaks.

I will vote on defense. A well-articulated, warranted, and contextualized no link argument extended into the last rebuttal can absolutely get me to give zero weight to an impact where the link story is poorly articulated and badly warranted. Relatedly, I will vote on presumption and feel strongly that the aff has the initial burden of persuasion. I realize this all makes me sound a million years old. I don't care.

I care about being told a coherent story. Contradictory off-case neg positions turn me off for that reason, even if you collapse down to some kind of plausibly non-contradictory position in the 2NR and are feeding me a "testing the aff from multiple perspectives good" line. Performative contradiction arguments or clever cross applications between flows are attractive to me for similar reasons.

Presentation matters. A good presentation in a policy round often isn't the same thing as good presentation in other forms of oral advocacy. But you fundamentally want to make me like your debate persona, and if I do I will be looking for reasons to pick you up. If you come off as cruel or a bully, I'll be looking for reasons to drop you.

PF

I think evidence violations of various kinds are, unfortunately, pervasive in PF, as a consequence of bad disclosure and evidence exchange practices combined with the use of paraphrasing. In part as a response to this concerning state of affairs, I hold students to a high standard on evidence ethics and have a comparatively low threshold for voting on this stuff or signing a ballot on an evidence violation. I will ask for evidence I think sounds fake or misrepresented. I will take an evidence ethics issue to tab on my own initiative even if not raised by your opponents.

I try to evaluate PF according to its own standards rather than just being a transplanted policy hack (which is admittedly what I am). To my mind a good PF round should look not dissimilar from talking heads on a cable news show discussing current events. It should be intelligible and engaging to an educated and informed lay audience. And that means this is not an event that should privilege a fast, technical, evidence-driven style of debating. I'm perfectly capable of flowing and judging fast, technical rounds, but I am flatly not going to hold debaters to the same kind of standards on this stuff that I would in a policy round and will afford significantly more leeway to less technical presentations than I might in CX.

For related reasons, I have a very high threshold for voting on theory in PF. If you do not have a credible in-round abuse story or it looks like you are cynically using highly technical theory arguments to bully a less technical team I will be spending the entirety of the debate looking for any halfway justifiable excuse to drop you.

Courtesy and promptness in satisfying requests for cards are something that I will take into account in speaker points. As far as I am concerned (and per NSDA rules), your opponents are well within their rights to ask for every piece of evidence you read or paraphrase, which you must then promptly provide to them in a manner which clearly shows, through e.g. highlighting or underlining, what portions of the evidence you read or paraphrased.

Congress

If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and it contains no clash, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and you appear to be reading the speech in its entirety, with no extemporaneous elements at all, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If your speech is substantially repetitive of prior speeches, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech.

I will generally rank a PO who effectively manages the chamber at #3. Other than the PO, I rank largely based on my scoring of speeches.

LD

I never did this event, don't coach this event, and have judged it only a handful of times. I do have a background in philosophy; it's what I got my undergraduate degree in. You'll probably find some helpful things under my CX section. I'll do my best.

Who are you?

I debated CX at Scituate High School in the conventional stock issues focused style of the Southeastern Massachusetts Debate League, then at UMASS where I turned into a K debater while learning everything I actually know about debate from Jillian Marty. Following a hiatus from debate I was an assistant coach for policy debate at James Madison High School in Virginia from 2018 to 2022. I have been the debate coach for Sidwell Friends School since fall 2022.

In terms of my non-debate life, I am among other things a Christian, a socialist, and a practicing class action plaintiff's lawyer.

Ryan Galloway

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

Broad Strokes: I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument in the activity. While my background and research interests are primarily in the policy side of the equation, I have frequently been convinced to vote for critical arguments. I love debate and am happy to be judging you. Debate requires a lot of work and effort on your part, and I plan on returning the favor by working hard to reward your effort in the debate.

Framework: The most important thing I could say about debating this issue, or virtually any other issue, is to listen carefully to what the other team says and to answer it specifically. I find that teams on both sides of the equation become block dependent and fail to answer the nuance of what the other team says. Before last year’s NDT, I thought I was a good judge for the negative, but at the NDT I voted affirmative twice in framework debates. I would recommend more line-by-line from both sides, and less overview dependent arguments. In many framework debates I've judged, the AFF tends to overwhelm the NEG with so many arguments that the NEG can't keep up. I often encourage the NEG to go for other arguments in those situations, even if they are less scripted and rely more on analytic arguments.

Topicality: I tend to be a good judge for contextualized definitions from either side. My ideal topicality debate would be one more about what the word means in context than arbitrary definitions from both sides with appeals to limits and ground. I am more amenable to appeals to reasonable interpretations than most judges. I dislike de-contextualized interpretations that create a meaning that is not in context of the literature or field.

Kritiks generally: Here's where I think I fall on various kritikal strands:

Very good for identity kritiks, very, very bad for high theory kritiks, pretty good for IR kritiks, goodish for nuclear weapons Kritiks, pretty bad for ad hominems disguised as kritiks, do not believe you can cross-x the judge. Unlikely to believe that one theory of power or psychological drive affects everyone in every situation. Do not think the alt or even having an alt is as important as other judges if you prove the ideological or discursive justifications of the affirmative make the world worse. Do not think that there needs to be an alternative to justify permutations to the ideology inherent in the criticism. Kind of bad for tiny risks of extinction mean I should ignore all standards of morality. Think all philosophical endeavors should be geared toward helping real people in their everyday lives. Better for discourse kritiks than most judges. As a vegetarian, I have found myself more sensitive to impacts on non-humans than many.

Identity k's: history shows I'm very good for them. Not as familiar with all the authors, so you need to guide me a bit. Some familiarity with lit on Afro-pess and Afro-futurism. Not good for the logic that suggests “if you link you lose” is somehow a bad standard of evaluation for k’s.

High Theory K's: you should honestly strike me if your primary strategy is to read generic theory cards referencing a dead French or German philosopher and somehow think they apply to nuclear weapons policy in 2024. I have read a fair amount of post-modern authors, who I generally find to be dull, arrogant, incoherent, usually incorrect, and pragmatically unhelpful. I will not apply your general theory of power to specifically link turning a highly nuanced affirmative case .I feel strongly that a lot of what is happening in these high-theory debates is intellectual bankruptcy and am willing to say the emperor has no clothes. I also think I have a higher standard for evidentiary quality in these debates than most.

IR K's: I'll certainly listen to a security K, a fem IR K, Gender kritiks, Complexity Kritiks, Kritiks of realism, etc. Might need to do a little work applying them specifically to the AFF--but I'm pretty open. I think the lit is deep, credible, and important.

Nuke Weapons K's: As long as the K is an actual indictment of nuclear weapons reductions or disarmament, I'm very down. I will caution you that I think most of the cards I've read talking about "nuclear weapons discourse" are in the context of those who discuss building up nuclear weapons and justifying nuclear deterrence, and are not about reductions and disarmament policies.

Clash debates: I find them hard to judge for both sides. I think if each team would line up what they are arguing the debate is about it would be helpful. Am I evaluating the consequences of FIAT'd action? I am evaluating the AFF as a demand for state action? Am I evaluating the educational benefits of a model of a debate? Am I judging the AFF as an artifact of scholarship?

For non-traditional frameworks, having a method or metric to evaluate what the debate is about would be helpful. How do I assess what is good scholarship? What are the benefits of endorsing a particular model of debate?

I've been told I am a k hack. Perhaps. I have been accused of being erratic in clash debates, wracked with guilt, and apply an offense/defense paradigm where it is inappropriate. It is possible that all of these criticisms may be true or false to some extent. I try and judge the debate I’m watching without a pre-prepared standard of evaluation.

Teams that directly engage the argument of the other team and not use generic framing issues tend to do better in front of me. Engage the scholarship directly, even if you don't have cards. Be willing to talk about how your affirmative operates in the framework established by the other team. Be responsive and think on your feet. Surprisingly good for pragmatism and incrementalism arguments. If the k answer fell out of flavor in the mid to late nineties, I probably really like the argument. I am completely uninterested in proving my kritik credentials or proving that I am down with whomever is the new hot theorist making the coffee shop rounds.

Disads and risk: Framing arguments on risk are very important to me. I flow them and will try to evaluate the debate on the terms that you set up. I try to not have a pre-planned position on how to evaluate these arguments. As with most arguments, less overview and more line-by-line is better. I like when teams use their evidence, even if it is not specific, to make link arguments specific to the affirmative. I view evidence as part of the tool-kit that you have, and the specific arguments you make about your evidence are very important to me. Evidence alone is not an argument. The use of evidence to make an argument is a fundamental component of debate.

Counterplans: I enjoy nuanced counterplan debates made specific to the plan/counterplan in the debate. I dislike littering the flow with permutations and generic theory arguments. I like smart counterplans that solve the internal link of the affirmative. I like theory debates where either team responds to what is happening in the debate they are engaged in, as opposed to abstractions. I lean pretty heavily for the neg on conditionality.

Theory: I'm much better for "if they get 'x' we get 'y' then they absolutely should not get 'x' under any circumstances.”I like strategic concessions on theory to justify arguments elsewhere on the flow. Standard theory blocks are stale and uninteresting, but if you've got an innovative theory or spin especially based on a concession of their theory, I'd be happy to listen. Standards of logic and whether something truly tests the affirmative plan or method are more persuasive to me than many others. Kind of not good for appeals to time skews and hypothetical strategy skews that are likely non-existent.

Novice Debate: I love novice debate and am so happy to be judging you. Novice is my favorite division to judge. I tend to reward novices who make smart arguments using their own logic to attack the other teams’ arguments. I tend to also reward specific line by line debating, so answer what the other team has to say specifically. Feel free to ask me lots of questions at the end of the debate about style, arguments, the decision, etc.

I have eased off some of my prior criticisms of the way novice is coached, but I will still tend to reward substantive arguments as opposed to arguments I view as cheap shots. I enjoy when novices are taught skills that will benefit them throughout their debate careers, instead of those designed to trick another novice with an esoteric and widely rejected theory they just haven’t heard yet.

Ethics challenges: I strongly believe that you should email your opponent or your coaches if you find a problem with their evidence. I think most mistakes are accidental. I have personally emailed coaches who have incorrectly cited a card and found the mistake to be accidental--cutting a lot of cards with multiple windows open and accidentally putting the wrong cite on a card, etc. I think we have to have a certain measure of trust and respect to make the activity happen.

Ethics challenges are happening way too often and are becoming trivialized. If you worry that my standard for trivial is arbitrary, non-trivial suggests you have contacted your opponents, that you are 100% sure you are factually correct, and you can illustrate intent on your opponents’ parts. I believe accusing someone of being unethical is incredibly serious and the standards should be very high.

Stylistic issues:

1. I prefer if you number your arguments.
2. Arguments should be clear in the 1ac/1nc. I dislike the idea that the other team should have to read your evidence to figure out the scope of the argument. The argument should be clear upon its initial presentation.
3. I prefer clear labels to arguments--no link, non-unique, turn, etc.
4. I prefer labels to off-case positions as they happen in the debate: The Politics disad, The TNW's PIC, the Security Kritik, etc. instead of just launching into a five plank counterplan text and leaving me to figure out what the thesis of the argument is.
5. I prefer specific line by line debating to doing most of the work in the overview.
6. I don't read speech docs as the debate goes on and I flow what you say, not what's in the doc.
7. I am very concerned about how stylistic and demeanor norms in the activity marginalize non-cis-dude debaters. Please don't cut off, mansplain to, talk over, berate, or not listen to non-cis-dude debaters. It is shocking to me how much this still goes on.
8. I try to judge the debate, and not the quality of the speech docs after the debate is over. I strongly disagree with judges who read all the cards and decide the debate from that.
9. I seem to be particularly sensitive to aggression in cross-x and cutting someone else off while they are trying to ask or answer a question. I think people should be quiet more and listen to the other side. I also don’t like cross-x filibustering. I don’t think cross-x should be used to “clown” or belittle your opponent. I realize I’m probably saying I believe in the opposite of everything you’ve learned about cross-x, but it’s how I feel. The best cross-x’s set up a trap that isn’t revealed until later in the debate.
10. I still believe in a place called Hope.

Last updated pre-NDT (3/26/24).

First-year coach for Georgetown (college) and Sidwell Friends (high school). Competed in policy debate for Georgetown University for 4 years. Did local-circuit LD in high school for 3 years.

This paradigm solely contains information on my predispositions and how I'll resolve debates in the absence of contrary instruction. The set of arguments for which I will not vote is vanishingly small.

I like debates where both teams respect each other and demonstrate they have put a lot of time and thought into their arguments, but I am largely agnostic as to the specific form and content that these arguments take. In other words, don't over-adapt.

egreerdebate@gmail.com

Overall Thoughts

-International relations and military strategy are not my areas of interest or expertise. You should err on the side of over-explanation when making nukes-topic-specific arguments. I am similarly uninformed about arguments related to economics and philosophy. I have a comparatively larger knowledge base about arguments related to law, elections/politics, domestic policy, and sociology.

-I prefer debates involving arguments about the topic. I think that policy debate should reward research and innovation within the topic area rather than incentivizing teams to recycle generics from year-to-year.

-Effective communication is imperative. Be clear; use numbers, emphasis, and sound bites to differentiate arguments; and focus on telling a cohesive story about why you win the issues that are most important for the debate. Don't be the kind of team that gets annoyed because I didn't think the one-sentence argument made 5 minutes into the final rebuttal was important for my decision.

-I'm not a disciplinarian. I will refuse to evaluate arguments about an opponent's behavior outside the debate. I have a high threshold for voting on procedural questions about an opponent's in-round behavior. Soliciting opportunities to make such arguments (e.g., by asking inflammatory CX questions) is a bad strategy in front of me.

-Ks are fine provided that they clash with core premises of the 1AC. At best, Ks are effective tools for grappling with and challenging the underlying assumptions of taken-for-granted worldviews. At worst, they are cheap shots that teams use to sidestep argumentative engagement.

-I rarely care about terminal impacts. Terminal impact calculus usually begs the question of the other levels of the debate. In a related vein, the argument that "extinction outweighs" is not an effective route to victory in front of me.

-I give speaker points in a normal distribution with 28.5 at the center.

T (vs. Policy Affs)

-I do not care about community norms. I will vote on topicality in elims of the NDT. I will vote on topicality against affs that were broken round one of the season opener. I see no reason why an interpretation's desirability would be affected by context within which an aff is read.

-The above does not mean that I'm "bad for the aff" in topicality debates - only that I think topicality is a germane criticism and that affirmative teams must take it seriously and answer it like any other argument.

-The thing I care about most in T debates is whether an interpretation is well-grounded in topic literature. Given equal debating, the person who is "correct" about what the words mean will usually win. By default, I view limits/ground arguments as a tiebreaker when two interpretations are equally plausible readings of the resolution.

-I haven't taken a grammar class since seventh grade. Please don't throw out random parts of speech with no explanation and expect me to understand.

-Neg teams are better served by speaking in terms of ground rather than limits. I care more about whether the neg has access to a set of cross-contextual topic generics than the number of case negs each team has to cut.

CPs/DAs

-Infinite conditionality is good. Persuading me otherwise is an uphill battle.

-I'm heavily aff-leaning on process CPs that do not include a reason why the plan is a bad idea. In other words, if I conclude that the "other issues" perm solves the net benefit, I'm unlikely to be a fan of your CP. If you can present a substantive DA to this perm (i.e., by proving that inclusion of the plan itself is undesirable), then I'm much more likely to vote neg.

-I default to thinking that it is illegitimate to fiat non-USFG actors, including the 50 states. It's much easier to convince me that 50 state fiat is legitimate than it is to convince me that international fiat or private actor fiat is legitimate.

-I don't judge kick unless the 2NR provides offense for doing so. Debate is about choices, and I won't make yours for you.

-I don't think anything can be "zero" risk. You're better off talking about risk in relative rather than binary terms.

-I won't vote for intrinsicness or theory against politics DAs unless dropped. Politics DAs are easy to beat substantively.

Ks (vs. Policy Affs)

-I have voted for Ks a disproportionate number of the times that they've been in the 2NR in front of me. When I vote neg, it's usually because the neg team invested a lot of time into a framework argument that mooted the aff offense, and the 2AR did not effectively argue that this framework argument was illegitimate.

-That said, I think teams tend to be over-reliant on framework. I would greatly prefer a debate which focuses on the desirability of the 1AC's underlying approach to politics in toto, to a framework debate. Neg teams should present aff-specific link arguments and case turns. Aff teams should present offense in favor of their assumptions.

-I don't find "you link, you lose" and "Ks are cheating" to be intuitively persuasive models of debate, but I will vote for either if executed well in the final rebuttals.

-Aff teams often spend large portions of their speeches making arguments about why the plan is good without investing sufficient time into winning that the plan being good is a relevant question for the debate. Arguments like "extinction outweighs," "perm double bind," and "alt fails" are not super useful when the 2NR is "vote neg because the 1AC as a rhetorical project was unethical." Instead, the 2AR should talk about why I should refuse to evaluate the 1AC solely as a rhetorical project.

-I think it is nearly impossible for the aff to "drop" a "floating PIK" because all aff framework offense is a reason why PIKs are illegitimate. If the aff wins that a plan-focused model of debate is good, then they have adequately answered the PIK because the PIK does not contest the plan's desirability. In contrast, if the neg wins that the plan doesn't matter, then almost all Ks are potentially plan-inclusive.

-Framework determines the threshold for alt solvency. If the desirability of the plan is a relevant consideration to the debate, the neg has a greater burden to produce an alternative approach to the world that would solve the impacts of the aff or solve another set of impacts that outweighs the aff. If the only relevant consideration is the desirability of the aff as a research object/scholarly project, the neg has a greatly reduced burden to explain what the alt means or does; in these instances, I treat "vote neg" as an alternative in itself.

-Fairness matters, but not as an end in itself. Aff teams must defend why fairness is necessary not merely for debate to exist, but for it to be a game worth playing.

K Affs and T/FW

-See the "Ks (vs Policy Affs)" section for thoughts on the fairness debate.

-Critique topicality, not the topic. Flaws in the topic are negative ground and therefore not offense against framework. Arguments such as "nuclear policy is imperialist" are relevant Ks of topical affirmatives, but they are not justifications for reading a non-topical aff.

-I hate arguments that rely on the premise that it's evil to defend or debate about things with which you personally disagree. College students do not have infallible understandings of the world. Debate intrinsically involves confronting the possibility that you could be wrong about your most closely-held beliefs - this is a feature, not a bug, of the activity.

-I prefer it when aff teams defend a specific model of debate. Speak granularly to the role your interp provides for clash/negation. Talk about core points of disagreement under your model and why this disagreement produces better debates.

Tips for Higher Speaker Points

-Read cards where the warrants are highlighted and point out where your opponents have failed to do the same.

-Send docs before ending prep.

-Don't send cards in the body of the email.

-Don't ask flow check questions (including "reasons to reject the team").

-Don't refer to the case pages as "advantage 1" and "advantage 2." I flow advantage names, not numbers.

-Don't read cards written by undergraduates.

-Don't reinsert rehighlighting unless the lines have already been read by the other team.

if you're lazy or short on time read the bolded parts for a short version of my paradigm. you are so very welcome.

West Campus '19; Gonzaga '23

Debate is very important to me. Please try and have some fun! I've had very bad anxiety that manifests itself physically as trichotillomania. Debate is a challenge to participate in fully because of anxiety. If you need to step out, take a minute, leave after your last speech, or anything else that will make debate accessible for you, I totally understand. Just let me know before round.

That goes for anything that will make the round more accessible for you, please just let me know before the round.

In terms of argument preference, do what you want. I’m good with whatever you want to throw at me (that’s a lie please don’t throw things at me I have very little coordination). Here’s a couple things to know:

T(opicality) – Fairness and education are voters but not if those 5 words are all you say about it. Otherwise do what you want.

Theory – slow down on analytics pls. honestly kind of a theory hack. drops are drops. if they drop theory don't be scared to go for it...Otherwise do what you want.

DAs – The more interesting, creative, fun the better; that doesn’t mean I won’t vote on, listen to, or even enjoy a politics debate. Otherwise do what you want.

CPs – slow down on theory. Advantage cps are sick but I do love my 50 states cp too. Otherwise do what you want.

Ks – I was a very pOliCy dEbaTeR in high school. I think ks are incredibly strategic arguments. I have a high threshold for aff specific links and prefer alts with some form of praxis. I tend to view a majority of the ks read in average high school rounds as non-unique disads, please make me want to take this out of my paradigm !! I want you to know what you’re doing and be able to do it well. I am not well-versed in K lit. I would say that while this is the largest section of my paradigm it’s a section that I believe will continue to evolve. if you want to change my mind about any of my k opinions pls pref me and get the chance to actually use your mindset shift alt :) I’m so down to have all of my opinions changed. Otherwise do what you want.

K affs – I frick with good framework debates. Let's talk about how we frame our work on both sides. I find case debate in K aff rounds super interesting. I think often times k on k debate can make things super messy and leave quite a bit too much up to judge discretion. Enter at your own risk. Otherwise do what you want.

Anything else - Do what you want. Seriously, my paradigm is short and blippy because debate is about you not me. I want to be as blank of a slate as possible and a fair of a judge as possible. This is educational for me too! Change my opinions, be articulate, get your point across, essentially do the bettter debating and you've probably got my vote.

--

--

A couple other things:

-Debate is a game. Duh. But what does that mean? You tell me.

-Please be nice. Be nice to me, be nice to your opponents, be nice to your partner, and coaches be nice to your kids. To quote the legend and my teammate Molly Martin, we are people before we are debaters.

-Tag team is always legit

-Emailing/flashing isn’t prep. If i'm feeling moody or tired this might change. If emailing/flashing is excessive I’ll call you out. Don’t steal prep.

-Ask all the questions you want and I will try to give you as much explanation for my decision. When I'm giving your decision, I have already submitted your ballot and my decision isn't changing no matter how good your post-rounding ability is.

-Debate is a home for so many students and the community is an undeniably amazing and unique thing. That being said, I am shattered whenever I think of all of the young people, especially young girls, who have experienced forms of sexual violence within this space. I have felt first-hand the kind of damage that this space can do. Let's do all we can to change that.

--

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

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

PF paradigm for Last Chance Qualifier:

1. Keep in mind that I don't know the topic at all -- you'll have to walk me through the links/the story of your argument.
2. Weigh your arguments and also respond to your opponents' weighing. A lot of the PF that I judge gets decided on the basis of drops -- you should be interacting in the last few speeches with any arguments that respond to what you're going for.
3. Please don't take too long sending evidence/don't excessively ask for evidence unless you really need to see it. I judge many rounds in which one side asks to see a ton of evidence and then barely references it later in the speech, yet the effect is still a considerable delaying of the round. If this becomes a problem I will be reducing speaker points.

LD paradigm from TOC (will probably update soon):

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

Hello debaters,

Welcome to the wonderful world of debate! I debated three years for Kelly high school (2006-09) in Chicago. I currently coach 3 high schools in San Jose.

I believe debate should be fun and a space where high school debaters have a platform to discuss the ideas of the resolution.

I usually vote based off an offense/defense paradigm.

Impact Calculus are always a win in my book!

I welcome all arguments and styles of debate if impacted, well explained and not ignorant and/or discriminatory in nature.

I am NOT a fan of tag team cross-x I like evaluating everyone individually.

I like overviews that give me a clear picture of what the debate comes down to. Why your arguments outweigh that of your opponents.

slucia.hernandez2@gmail.com if you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me.

I love good clean road maps, sign posting, line-by-line and an emphasis on tags. 

Good luck in your debate careers!

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

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

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

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

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present

10+ years experience in national circuit policy @ Damien HS, Baylor University and other institutions

Email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com

I will evaluate offense and defense to make my decision unless you tell me to do otherwise.

Framework

I have an appreciation for framework debates, especially when the internal link work is thorough and done on the top of your kritik/topicality violation before it is applied to pivotal questions on the flow that you resolve through comparative arguments. On framework, I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any direction [any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below]

The Kritik

I have almost no rigid expectations with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I have studied and debated the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, to that extent I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with.

Topicality:

I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it - this is also not to say nobody could convince me to vote for reasonability, only that I will not default in that direction without prompt.

Counterplans:

Theory debates can be great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan.

I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions.

Updates:

Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020

I have judged enough framework debates at this point in the topic to feel prompted to clarify my approach to judging framework v. K aff rounds. I believe that there are strong warrants and supporting arguments justifying procedural fairness but that these arguments still need to be explicitly drawn out in debates and applied as internal link or impact claims attached to an interpretation or defense of debate as a model, activity, or whatever else you want to articulate debate as. In the plainest terms, I'm saying that internal link chains need to be fully explained, weighed, and resolved to decisively win a framework debate. The flipside of this disposition applies to kritikal affs as well. It needs to be clear how your K Aff interacts with models and methods for structuring debate. It is generally insufficient to just say "the aff impacts are a reason to vote for us on framework" - the internal links of the aff need to be situated and applied to the debate space to justify Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge arguments if you believe that your theory or critique should implicate how I evaluate or weigh arguments on the framework flow or any other portion of the debate.

As with my evaluation of all other arguments, on framework a dropped claim is insufficient to warrant my ballot on its own. Conceded arguments need to be weighed by you, the debater. Tell me what the implications of a dropped argument are, how it filters or conditions other aspects of the flow, and make it a reason for decision.

Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016

In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument.

I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decisively important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you.

If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email.

Cathedral Prep: 2013-2017, Naval Academy: 2017-2021

Email chain: william.a.lewiscp17@gmail.com

I’m a big fan of this activity we have here in policy debate. Do what you do best, forget the rest.

Disadvantages: Link will always be evaluated first before uniqueness. Solid link evidence and analysis can break the tie in sketchy uniqueness situations like we have with politics currently. That being said, internal link chains still matter, and a causal explanation of how exactly x leads to y is valuable. Link turns are underutilized as are impact turns.

Counterplans: I lean negative on questions of conditionality. Specificity of negative solvency evidence should be an important place of contention. Not going to judge kick until authorized.

K's: Links will be evaluated first, followed by the impact. Links of omission are weak, but I still think well-researched k links can be found against almost any affirmative implementing a plan. Winning the alternative debate isn’t a deal breaker, though the negative must prove we are better off by not doing the plan. Perms need to be more fleshed-out than just “do both.” K’s of representations aren’t great. After the link, which the negative probably will get, this debate comes down to framing, (consequentialism vs. deontology/epistemology). In Cap and Security debates impact turns can and should be used by the affirmative, but in identity debates it really comes down to the question of ontology and the permutation.

Topicality: Clash is the ultimate impact to limits. It’s just like debating a disadvantage. Win the link, win the impact.

Clash debates: Being tangential to the topic is preferable. When going against a critical affirmative the negative should have something more than T/FW in the 1NC. Diversify strategy, research the literature. Specificity of links is important. With that being said, the negative should use the TVA like a counter plan, with fairness/education as the net benefit followed by substantive answers on case that also act as a net benefit to the TVA.

Will flow cross-ex.

Background: Georgetown University '23 & Northside College Prep '19

I competed in national circuit policy debate for seven years, qualifying for the NDT and the TOC. Currently coaching for Northside College Prep in Chicago and Richard Wright PCS in D.C (go urban debate leagues!).

Debate is not my full-time job; however, I do spend quite a bit of my free time coaching, judging, and cutting cards.

Yes, email chain: km1585(at)georgetown(dot)edu

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

TLDR: You do you. No one can be truly tabula rasa, however, I intend to evaluate the arguments at hand rather than default to my personal preferences. Preferences about specific arguments are my defaults in the absence of adequate argumentation.

Be respectful toward one another. I am not afraid to dock speaks for unnecessary ad hominems or things of that nature.

I really like when debaters emphasize important parts of their speeches. This does not mean yelling.

There is no way for me to verify things that happened outside of the debate so I will not vote on them.

If you make any argument about the other team cheating, you need to stake the debate on it. I will end the round there and give 25s + Ls to the offending team. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted 25s.

Evidence

Evidence quality matters a lot but only to the extent to which teams makes arguments about it. (Is the author qualified to speak on this issue (not an undergraduate)? Do they have an incentive to misrepresent certain information due to their own biases or otherwise? Is your article peer-reviewed?) However, I won't read cards from the speech doc UNLESS there is an unresolved back-and-forth on the evidence in question. I would highly prefer teams explained what their evidence says rather than asking me to read it afterwards.

Furthermore, explain the implications of qualification/date/etc when comparing. It's not enough to say "our evidence is more recent" without explaining why that matters.

Counterplans

I'm aff leaning on most competition questions - if you have doubts about whether your counterplan is competitive, make sure you are very confident in answering the perm. Conditionality is probably good and I'm generally OK with states (this does not mean you can just say "fiat" when responding to every aff answer). Theory debates on those questions are winnable, but should not be your first resort. Most theory arguments, aside from condo, are reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Disasdvantages

"Turns case" and "turns disad" arguments are usually under-explained, however, I'll reward thoughtful versions of these arguments even if analytical.

Topicality

Try to provide a clear picture of what debates will look like under the various interpretations in the debate. Negative teams will be best served by reading evidence that clearly substantiates their desired limit. Successful affirmative teams will have well thought out arguments about the intrinsic benefits of including their affirmative in the topic.

Kritiks

Specificity is a must, if not in evidence, then in application. I won't hesitate to vote on more generic or tricky arguments if they're dropped, but the bar is higher when the affirmative has a cogent answer. Affirmative teams should be ready with a good defense of what they say and do in the debate. Negative teams will benefit greatly with even a few well-thought-out case arguments.

The K is core neg ground against small affs. I’m unpersuaded by interps that exclude K arguments entirely. That said, I’m not great for FW interps that entirely exclude the plan. I believe neg teams must disprove the desirability of the plan, but not that they must do so solely with references to its narrow, fiated consequences.

I am very familiar with critiques of capitalism and settler colonialism, more so than I am with other genres of the K. Do with that what you will.

Performance/Plan-less/Other Labels

As above, do what you are best at and I will give the attention and thought I would any other argument. That being said, if you want to completely dispense with the plan-focused vision of the topic, you need a very compelling reason for doing so. In topicality/framework debates, clear links and clash at the impact level is most important. Simply saying the negative is denied disadvantages or the affirmative is denied ground is not sufficient. For the affirmative, your aff's solvency mechanism should not be an afterthought. For the negative, be sure to press on the scope of the aff's solvency claims as they are often disconnected from the impact.

my email is menokri@gmail.com

add me to the email chain if I'm about to judge your round.

Online debate note: having judged 35+ rounds of online debate at this point - please slow down if you're debating virtually. 70-80% of your normal max speed should be fine.

TLDR: Say whatever you want to say- if you are passionate and enthusiastic about your argumentation, I am more inclined to be an enthusiastic and active Judge. I have little to say about argumentative preference besides the fact that I am probably not the person to have in the back of a room for a policy-policy T debate given that I have little topic knowledge, and I also hate unresponsive theory debates.

I am here first and foremost to listen to the things you have woken up early in the morning to come tell me about. Do not be afraid to talk to me during your speeches, do not be afraid to tell me which way to vote and why to do it, and do not be afraid of the LBL!

Tech over truth always unless a substantive argument is made by either side as for why debate techné should be reconsidered.

People that have influenced the way I think abt competition and debate: Kevin Kuswa, Dr. Reid-Brinkley, Daryl Burch, Amber Kelsie, Taylor Brough, Ignacio Evans, Jack Lassiter, and Nick Lepp.

Do not call me judge, or ask me to go to the bathroom/start prep/etc. !!!

About me: I debated for Berkeley Preparatory School and as a hybrid team in HS. I had 5 bids my senior year, and 2 my junior year. My senior year, I went to 6 tournaments and got to finals of 4, and got to a bid round and a top 10 speaker award at all 6.

I debated on the 2018-2019 college topic (executive authority) at Wake Forest, cleared at a couple national tournaments and got to Octafinals of CEDA before transferring to Columbia and choosing to no longer pursue collegiate debate.

In both high school and college I was primarily a performance and K debater, but this by no means indicates I lean towards a particular side of the argumentative spectrum- if anything, it means I have a higher burden for both sides in clash of civ debates given that I have been on both sides of that debate several times. I have also read plans, extended disads, gone for Framework, etc.

Things I appreciate regardless of what side of the spectrum you fall on:

- comparative impact calc- do not explain your impacts in a vacuum, explain them in the context of the impacts your opponents are going for! Which impact and TYPE of impacts should I prioritize more?

- I LOVE impact turns. These are some of my fave debates to judge.

- creative strategies and passion

FW debates:

for the love of god, please have external impacts to your model and describe the limits and ground provided by the model of debate you are forwarding.

This means: negative teams going for framework, please isolate why your model of debate is GOOD and what it provides for the community, not just arguments as for why they make your model of debate worse/unplayable.

Aff teams- don't just talk about why their model is bad/harmful- please talk about the minutia of your own model- what can the aff say under your model? what is predictable ground the neg can say in response? Why is this model of debate preferable to theirs?

Generally default to debate being a game unless told otherwise

Aff against the K:

if you have a plan-

- if you say extinction and are good at the util debate, by all means, go for it.

- please defend your aff and why it's a good idea instead of relying on arbitrary FW arguments. I am v inclined to give the neg the K and the aff their aff unless an argument as for why either should be excluded is repeatedly extended and dropped.

- if you're going for the perm, please answer the LBL from the negative team as for why you get the perm instead of making a series of compelling, common-sense perm arguments in the 2AR that should've been in the 1ar.

if you don't-

- big fan of either the link turn or the perm in K v K debates.

- please have a theory of competition!!! that makes these debates so much easier to resolve from my end.

- please do impact calculus- it is unbelievably frustrating to have to determine on my own which nebulous impact matters more or impacts solvency- tell me what to evaluate first and why I should evaluate it first.

Going for the K:

- the primary theory bases I read during my career: afropessimism, queer pessimism, quare theory, anything involving gender, and psychoanalysis- if you are reading anything outside of these literature bases, please be comfortable giving me a greater degree of explanation instead of dropping buzzwords.

- do not be afraid to be creative- a creative, well-thought-out, and well-executed strategy is always more interesting to listen to early in the morning.

- if you're kicking out of the alt, please explain why your link arguments still have uniqueness, especially in a world where your alternative was the only thing generating uniqueness for the K as a whole.

- much better for alts that question/change epistemology in the round or result in some form of praxis than a nebulous alt that never claims to resolve any of the impacts of the Kritik.

- sucker for external impacts and links that turn case.

- answer fairness and reciprocity arguments on the framework flow please

Speaks

- If an argument is consistently extended and dropped as to why one team should get higher/lower speaks I will usually adjust speaks accordingly (assuming I feel comfortable w/ and understand the argument as for why that should be)

To get higher speaks in front of me:

- know what you're talking about

- package your arguments in a way that is both easy to flow and understand (this includes both short blippy theory args and 5 minute K overviews)

- make smart strategic decisions about what is going into your speeches and what you spend your time on

- drop relevant examples and explain/extend them consistently!

- make eye contact/be an engaging speaker that *pretends* to care what they're talking about

kmoore@svudl.org

You don't need to be overly polite, but you also do not need to be rude. I will vote for the other team if you are blatantly disrespectful and rude with no context for it within the round.

How fast can I go?

As fast as you want while remaining clear. If you must spread, don't slur the words together. If I can make out the individual words you're using, I can keep up. I'm not going to tell you if I can't keep up, that's the risk you run by spreading as fast as possible. I am usually much more in favor of a smaller amount of well supported and reasoned arguments though. Technical skill alone will not win a round judged by me, but it will play a significant factor in whether or not you win.

How does he award Speaker Points?

Purely based on who the best speaker is, which is a totally subjective system. If you can speak clearly yet quickly, maintain eye contact when appropriate and keep filler words to a minimum you'll get higher speaking points. If you can find a way to speak to me instead of at me, you'll get higher speaker points. Don't feel like you need to do anything special, I'm not stingy with Speaker Points.

What can I run in front of him?

Run whatever you want, I'll judge it based on the arguments presented to me by you and your opponent.

Anything else?

I'm a debate coach, and have debated for a few years in high school. I've been involved with the debate community in some way, shape or form for more than 10 years. Philosophical arguments are immensely appealing to me, so if you are running a Kritik I will be more than happy to follow along if you decide to get really abstract and in the weeds with it. I enjoy technical and nuanced arguments, feel free to really dive into things because I will be able to follow your train of thought and weigh it against your opponents if you do a good enough job contextualizing it and tying it into the debate. If you read evidence to me and don't spend any time analyzing the evidence and contrasting it with your opponents/telling me why I should value your evidence over theirs I will not be happy. Don't just read evidence to me and expect me to do the work.

Don't add me to the email chain as a way to ignore speaking clearly. I'm OK with being on the email chain, and if you add me I will look at the evidence. If you ASK me if I want to be on the email chain, I will more than likely say no.

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

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 debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. 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. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. 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.

I am a fan of “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. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

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. 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. Some of 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 more than 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.

Updated for 2023-2024 Season

Please put me on the speech thread! Thank you.

Email: thelquinn@gmail.com

Titles: Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).

Meta-thoughts:

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you researched.

Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it. I will likely say clear though, it's nothing personal.

I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs to prevent clipping. At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions.

Education/Debate Background:

Wake Forest University: 2011-2015. Top Speaker at ADA Nationals my Junior Year. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin. Pittsburgh Round Robin.

Mountain Brook High School: 2007-2011. 3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals.

Policy Thoughts:

Tl;dr: Offense/defense, the algorithm, cards are currency. UQ determines link unless otherwise said. Willing to pull the trigger on T/theory.

Flow: Most debaters should make analytics off their flows, especially in digital debate. Conversely, if you include analytics on your speech doc but I do not find you clear but I recognize where you are on your speech doc, I will not consider them arguments.

Condo: Im largely ok with conditionality. I think the best aff args against conditional are against contradictory conditional options. I do not really like the counter-interp of dispo. Im a much bigger fan of CI is non-contradictory conditional options.

• 3 or less non contradictory conditional options is ok to me
• 2 contra condo is fine
• 3 contradictory condo (including a K) and I am willing to vote on contra condo bad.
• For new affs, I think at most 5 contra condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.
• I think negs should take the 2 seconds it takes to have a CI that isn't "what we did." "What we did" is not really a good CI in debates.

CP Theory: If the 2AC straight turns your disad, no amount of theory will justify a 2NC CP out of/around the straight turned DA. 2NC CP's vs addons are different and chill/encouraged. Generic Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs cause me to lean aff on theory/perm, unless you have a good solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate/perm do CP against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.

I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you.

T: My "favorite" standards are predictable limits (debatability) and real-world context (literature/education). I think a topicality interp that has both of those standards I will err on. Evidence that is both inclusive and exclusive is the gold standard. I tend to be more moderate with reasonability. I am not in the cult of limits. I err aff if I believe your interpretation is "reasonable" and that the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if their interpretation is slightly better.

Kritikal Debate. I vote off the flow, which means my opinions on K debate are secondary to my voting. And I was 4-0 for Wake BD last year in some big debates against policy teams, so I'm going to vote for the team that I thought did the better debating (But are you Wake BD?). Im not really opposed to kritiks on the negative that are tied to the plan/resolution or kritikal affirmatives that defend a topical plan of action. I think where I draw the line is that I'm not a good judge for more performance based "affirmatives/negatives" that neither affirm nor negate the plan text/resolution. I lean very heavily neg on FW v non or anti-topical K affs. I think a good topical version of the affirmative is the best argument on FW. The role of the judge is to vote for the team who does the better debating. Debate is an educational game we play on the weekend with friends. I will not evaluate arguments that derive from actions/events out of the debate I am judging. Fairness is an impact and intrinsically good. I do not believe the ballot has material power to change the means of production/structures and thinking it does may even be problematic.

Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by inevitability and alt cause args.

Updated for 2014-2015 debate season.

I am no longer awarding points for people taking the veg pledge. However, I still strongly believe that if you care about the environment, racism, or injustice that you should register at tournaments vegetarian or vegan. Tournaments will provide for your nutiritional needs and you will have abstained from using your registration fees paying for the slaughter of sentient creatures whose death requires abhorent working conditions for people of color, massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the death of individuals. 

What people decide to consume is a political act, not a personal one. Deciding to consume flesh at debate tournaments continues the pattern of accepting violence and discrimination. This happens for workers, for people living in food deserts, people living in countries across the world, and for the non/human animals sent to slaughter. Tournaments are not food deserts. Your choice to consume differently can make a tangible impact on debate as a community and beyond. Your choice has global and local ramifications. I urge you to make the correct choice in registering your dietary choice even if it has no impact on your speaker points. Several people said that they didn't want to be coerced into making the decision to go vegetarian or vegan at tournaments for speaker points. Now is your chance to make that choice without the impact of speaker points.

All that being said, how you choose to debate is a political choice as well. You can debate however you like but you should realize that the methodology and the content you put forth are not neutral choices. Whatever choices you make you should be ready to defend them in round. “As Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen emphasize in Channels of Desire: The politics of consumption must be understood as something more than what to buy, or even what to boycott. Consumption is a social relationship, the dominant relation-ship in our society – one that makes it harder and harder for people to hold together, to create community. At a time when for many of us the possibility of meaningful change seems to elude our grasp, it is a question of immense social and political proportions.” (hooks 376).

If it is not already clear, I will say it outright: I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. This does not mean I won't vote on framework or counterplans. What it does mean is that the arguments that I will find most appealing are those arguments that speak to how traditional approaches to debate are beneficial to us as individuals to create a better world. It is not that fairness is irrelevant, but that fairness is relevant only to that extent. Fairness plays a part in constructing meaninful education and activism but is not the sole standard to enable good debate. Concepts of fairness are not value-neutral but it is a debate that can be defend and won in front of me since I do not think fairness is irrelevant either. For teams breaking down such structures, you still must win the debate that your approach to debate is better for advacing causes of social justice. If you like policymaking and are running counterplans you merely need to win that your counterplan is a better approach. The same applies for theory violations. I will vote on them if you win that the impact to the violation is important enough for me to pull the trigger. The same is also true for kritiks and other styles of debate. Win that your approach and your argument deserves to win because of the impact that it has.

Again, to be clear, this does not mean that I intend to abandon the flow or vote based upon my personal beliefs. My belief is that debate is more than a game and that the things we say and do in it are not neutral-choices. This does not necessarily mean that so-called traditional policy debate is bad but that the way it should be approached by those teams should not be assumed to be neutral.

Whether it is what you eat, or what you debate, your choice is political. Our world can change. It is up to all of us to make it happen. Movements are already happening all around us. Don't let the norms dictate what you debate or what you consume. Debate should be at the forefront of these initiatives. Use the education you gain in debate to say something and to do something meaningful both in round and beyond.

**EMAIL FOR EVIDENCE CHAIN**: semplenyc@gmail.com

Coaching Background
Policy Debate Coach @

Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (2020 - )

NYCUDL Travel Team (2015-PRESENT)

Brooklyn Technical High School (2008-2015)
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (2008-2010)
Benjamin Banneker Academy (2007-2008)
Paul Robeson HS (2006-2007)

Administrative Background
Program Director of the New York City Urban Debate League (September 2014 - Present)

Debater Background
Former Debater for New York Coalition of Colleges (NYU/CUNY) (2006- 2009)
An alumnus of the IMPACT Coalition - New York Urban Debate League (2003-2006)

Judging Background
Years Judging: 15 (Local UDL tournament to National Circuit/TOC)

Rounds Judged
Jack Howe is the first I will judge on this LD topic.

LD Paradigm

I've judged LD in the northeast and given my policy background, I can judge a circuit LD debate. My thoughts on LD are pretty similar to Policy given that you can run whatever you want... just make an argument and impact it. My specifics on LD (which I judge similar to Policy) is listed below.

PF Paradigm
I've been coaching PF for a few years now and to talk about my judging paradigm on PF, I would like to quote from Brian Manuel, a well-respected debate coach in the debate community when he says the following:

"This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in the debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you"


Policy Short Version:
I try to let you, the debaters decide what the round is about and what debate should be. However, as I enter my fifteenth year in this activity, I will admit that certain debate styles and trends that exist from convoluted plan texts/advocacy statements where no one defends anything and worse; debaters that purposely and intentionally go out of their way to make competitors and judges and even spectators feel uncomfortable through fear tactics such as calling people out in debate because one doesn't agree with the other's politics, utilizing social media to air out their slanderous statements about people in the debate community and so on is tired and absolutely uncalled for. I say this because this has been an on-going occurrence far TOO often and it has placed me in a position where I'm starting to lose interest in the pedagogical advantages of policy debate due of these particular positions. As a result, I've become more and more disinterested in judging these debates. Not to say that I won't judge it fairly but the worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot is failing to explain what your argument is and not telling me what the ballot signifies. So, if you are the type of team that can't defend what your aff does or how it relates to the topic and solely survives off of grandiose rhetoric and/or fear tactics... STRIKE ME!

Long Version:

The Semantics of "So-Called" Rules or Norms for Debate Rounds


THE INTRO: I try to have zero substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. But as I judge, judge, and judge policy debates, that tends to shift. So, in out of all honesty, I say to you that all debaters will have the opportunity to argue why you should win off with a clean slate. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you all to make things up. So at the end of the day, don’t make me have to do the work to adjudicate the round… you do it. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THE WORK THAT YOU SHOULD DO IN THE ROUND!!! I don't mind reading evidence at the end of a debate, but don't assume that I will call for evidence, make sure that if you want me to evaluate your argument with your evidence at the end of the round just tell me what I should review, and I'll review the argument for you. Also, if you intend to use acronyms, please give me the full name before you go shorthand on me.

TOPICALITY: I've come to enjoy T debates, especially by those that are REALLY good at it. If you are that T hack that can go for T in the 2NR then I am a lot better for you than others who seem to think that T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, that brings major weight when it is time for adjudication. FYI, T is genocide and RVIs are not the best arguments in the world for these debates but I will pull the trigger on the argument is justified. (and I mean REALLY justified). Voting on reasonability or a competing interpretation as a default paradigm for evaluating T is up for grabs, but as always I need to know how the argument should be evaluated and why it is preferable before I decide to listen to the T debate in the 2NR (e.g. predictable limits key to topic education).

COUNTERPLANS: I don’t mind listening to a good (and I mean) good CP debate. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. I award debaters that are creative and can create CPs that are well researched and are competitive with the AFF plan. Those types of debates are always up in the air but please note that in my experience that debaters should be on top of things when it comes to CP theory. Those debates, if executed poorly are typically unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve so be careful with running theory args on CP debates that A) makes ZERO sense, B) that is blimpy, and C) that is not necessary to run when there is no abuse. Violation of any of the three will result in me giving you a dumb look in your speech and low speaks. And it really doesn't hurt to articulate a net benefit to the CP for that would win you some offense.

DISADVANTAGE: I evaluate Disads based on the link story presented by the negative in the 1NC and what is impacted in the 2NR. To win my vote, the story needs to be clear in terms of how specifically does the affirmative link to the DA. Any case can link but it’s how specific the link is and the calculus of the impact that makes me lean more towards the neg.

KRITIKS: I can handle K debates, considering the majority of my debate career has been under critical arguments (i.e. Capitalism, Statism, Racism, Biopower…) But, if you are a team that relies on the judge being hyped up by fancy rhetoric that you learn from camp, practice, or a debate video on YouTube, you don’t want me. In fact, some of you love to read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like a fast debate like anyone else, but if you read the overview to your tortuously complex kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, go nuts with speed. I will vote on offensive arguments such as "K Debate Bad/Good or the perm to the alt solves or turns to the K, as long as you win them. Overall, I’m cool with the K game, ya dig. All I ask of you all is a comprehensive link story for me to understand... an impact and what does the alternative world looks like and how that is more desirable than the aff policy option. "Reject the aff" as the alt text.... very long stretch on winning the K if I don't know what it means.

FRAMEWORK: Like Topicality, I also enjoy framework debates, if done properly. And like topicality, I try to not have a default preference in terms of defaulting to policymaker or activist or whatever in the fairness of approaching the debate round from a clean slate. At the end of the debate, I need to know what the round should be evaluated and what is my jurisdiction as a judge to evaluate the debate on a particular framework versus the opponent's competitive framework (if they choose to present one). If there isn't a competitive framework, I'll simply default to the original framework mentioned in the debate. In essence, if I am not presented with a framework of how to evaluate the argument, I'll take the easy way out and evaluate the argument as a policymaker. However, it is up to the debaters to shape the debate, NOT ME.

PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I'm slowly starting to dislike judging these types of debates. Not because I don't like to hear them (I've ran critical affirmatives and neg positions both in high school and in college) but more and more I'm stuck judging a debate where at the end of round, I've spent nearly two hours judging and I've learned little to nothing about the topic/subject matter but instead subjected to grandiose rhetoric and buzzwords that makes no sense to me. I really dislike these debates and the fact that these types of debates are growing more and more places me in a position where I'd rather not judge these rounds at all. As a judge, I shouldn't have to feel confused about what you are saying. I shouldn't have to feel pressured into voting a certain way because of one's pessimistic view of the debate space. Granted, we all have our issues with policy debate but if you don't like the game... then don't play it. Changing the debate space where diversity is acknowledged is fine but when we lose sight of talking about the resolution in lieu of solely talking about one's personal politics only becomes self-serving and counter-productive. For that, I am not the right judge for you.

That said, if you want to run your K aff or "performance" affirmative, do what you do best. The only burden you have is that you need to win how your level of discourse engages the resolution. If you cannot meet that burden then framework/procedural arguments become an easy way to vote you down. If you can get through that prerequisite then the following is pretty straightforward: 1) I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. 2) If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the resolution and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa. 3) I want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance/K Affs with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me, in fact, you will just hate me when I give you lower speaks. However, if you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine. 4) If you answer performance/ K Affs arguments with well thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you’ll easily pick up my ballot.

THEORY: This is something that I must say is extremely important to mention, given that this is greatly a big issue in policy debate today, especially in the national circuit. So let me be clear that I have experienced highly complex theoretical debates that made virtually NO sense because everyone is ready to pull out their blocks to "Condo Bad" or "Vagueness Good" or "Agent CPs Bad" without actually listening to the theoretical objection. With that I say, please pay attention. Good teams would provide an interpretation of how to evaluate a theory argument. Like a procedural argument, you should prove why your interpretation of the theoretical argument is preferred for debate. It would also help you to SLOW, SLOW, SLOW down on the theory debates, especially if that is the route that you're willing to go to for the 2NR/2AR. If the affirmative or negative are planning to go for theory, either you go all in or not at all. Make sure that if you're going for theory, impact it. Otherwise, I'm left to believe that its a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

FLASHING EVIDENCE/EMAIL CHAIN: I have a love-hate relationship with paperless debate but I can accept it. That being said, please be aware that I will stop the prep time once the flash drive is out of the computer of the team that is about to speak. I take this very seriously considering the on-going mishaps of technical issues that are making the paperless debate, in general, a notorious culprit of tournament delays, considering the flashing of the evidence, the opponents searching for the correct speech file, and the infamous "my computer crashed, I need to reset it" line. If you are capable of having a viewing computer... make it accessible. I'm also cool with email chains. You can send me your speeches to semplenyc@gmail.com. Same rules on flashing apply to email chains as well.

BEHAVIOR STYLE: To be aggressive is fine, to be a jerk is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be nice to each other. I don't want to sound like the elementary school teacher telling children to behave themselves, but given the experience of some debaters that simply forgot that they are in an activity that requires discipline and manners... just chill out and have fun. For example, POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS really grinds my gears. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point. And oh yeah, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the one you have to go back to practice with.

Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.

HAVE FUN AND BEST OF LUCK!!!

Matt Stannard

stannard67@gmail.com

Me: he/him, I participated in policy debate for West Jordan High School and Weber State University, I have coached multiple formats at Eastern Utah, Long Beach, Wyoming and Lewis & Clark, and have directed and/or taught at a vast multitude of institutes.

Delivery: I will, shockingly enough, miss your unclear analytics. Speak clearly no matter your rate of delivery. Over-enunciate. Don't leave comprehension to chance; control what I write down.

The (very important) game: all styles and formats of debate are good, policy/critical/procedural all valuable, I am not the state, topics and topic research are good, I vote for all kinds of arguments even when I intellectually disagree with them, debate should be both very accessible and very challenging.

Important needs and assumptions: besides clarity, I have these predispositions: (1) conditionality is fine until the 2NR; you need to explicitly tell me what advocacy you are kicking. (2) I seem to have a greater need than other judges for good solvency cards for affs, counterplans, and K alternatives. Many K alts I hear feel vague to me at the outset. Love voting for movements and don't think fiat is confined to the state, but the threshold is specific advocacy with solvency cards. (3) political and social implications of T and other procedural/framework interps can be reasons to prefer/reject them, weighable against other reasons. They aren't "genocide" per se, but they aren't ideologically neutral; debate it out. (4) aff should provide a clear statement of advocacy, neg should provide a clear reason to reject the aff.

Tech: I judge online a lot, please use the best mic tech you have and don't project your vocals directly into an internal laptop mic. Prep time ends when you say so and then IMMEDIATELY hit send, and in all debate tech scenarios if anything goes wrong don't panic, we'll be fine and figure out what to do.

Ethics: be chill to each other outside of your speeches (in your speeches you should feel free to be ruthless if that's your thing), don't cheat, let's all commit to dismantling classism, racism, sexism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, ageism and ableism, and to listen to those affected by exclusion--not just as debaters making arguments but as responsible and accountable human beings making our world. It's okay that debate is weird and different. Please make it a safe place for everyone.

Debated 4 years at Weber State University (2013-2017)

Four time NDT Qualifier, 2017 NDT Octa-Finalist, 2015 CEDA Quater-Finalist

Currently a Graduate Assistant at James Madison University

I believe debate is for the debaters, I am happy to listen to whatever your argument is and will do my best to adapt to you so you don’t have to change the way you debate. I would much rather you do what you are comfortable with than read an argument just because you think it is something I would prefer to hear. I debated for 8 years and have read and coached all different kinds of arguments, so you should feel comfortable doing whatever you want in front of me. Everything else I’m going to say is just my preference about debate arguments and doesn’t mean that my mind can’t be changed. The last thing I'll say here is the most important thing for me in debates is that you defend your arguments. You can read almost anything in front of me as long as you can defend it. I decide the debates based off of what is on my flow, and nothing else.

Critical Affirmatives – I believe affirmatives should have a relation to the resolution, but I think there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. To get my ballot with a non-traditional affirmative you must justify why your discussion/performance is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution or why the resolution is bad. I am sympathetic to arguments that the negative needs to be able to engage the affirmative on some level, and I don't think that "they could read the cap K" is good ground. Counter interpretations are important on framework and will help me frame your impact turns. To win your impact turns to any argument I think the affirmative should have some mechanism to be able to solve them. Overall, I think it is important for any affirmative to actually solve for something, having a clear explanation starting from the 1AC of how you do that is important, and that explanation should stay consistent throughout the debate.

Framework – I think negative framework arguments against critical affirmatives are strategic and love to listen to thought out arguments about why the resolution is an important form of education. Fairness and ground are also impacts I will vote on and I perceive them as being important claims to win the theory of your argument. I am easily compelled that the negative loses ground when a non-topical affirmative is read, and having a list of what that ground is and why it is important is helpful when evaluating that debate. Even if you don't have cards about the affirmative it is important that you are framing your arguments and impacts in the context of the affirmative. If your FW 2NC has no mention of the affirmative that will be a problem for you. I view topical versions of the affirmative and switch side arguments as an important aspect to win this debate.

Kritiks – As I reached the end of my debate career this is the form of debate I mostly participated in which means I will have a basic understanding of your arguments. My research was more in structural critiques, especially feminism. I have dappled in many other areas of philosophy, but I wouldn’t assume that I know a lot about your Baudrillard K, so if that is your thing explanation is important. If you have an alternative, it is important for you to explain how the alternative functions and resolves your link arguments. I would prefer links specific to the affirmative over generic links. I am not a huge fan of links of omission. You will do better in front of me if you actually explain these arguments rather than reading your generic blocks full speed at me. In method v method debates I think you need to have a clear explanation of how you would like competition to function, the sentence "no permutations in a method debate" doesn't make sense and I think you need to have more warrants to why the permutation cannot function or wouldn't solve.

For affirmatives answering critiques, I believe that impact turns are highly useful in these debates and are generally underutilized by debaters. I don't think permutations need to have net benefits, but view them as just a test of competition. However just saying extend "perm do both" isn't an acceptable extension in the 1AR and 2AR, you should explain how it can shield the links. As for reading framework on the aff against a critique, it will be very hard for you to convince me that a negative team doesn’t get the critique at all, but you can easily win that you should be able to weigh the impacts of the 1AC.

Counterplans – Please slow down on the text of the CP, especially if it is extremely long. I am fine with anything as long as you can defend it and it has a clear net benefit. If I can't explain in my RFD how the counterplan solves majority of the affirmative or its net benefit then i'm probably not going to vote for it, so start the explanation in the block.

Disadvantages – I enjoy a good disad and case debate with lots of comparison and explanation. I would much rather that you explain your arguments instead of reading a bunch of cards and expecting me to fill in the holes by reading all of that evidence, because I probably won’t.

Topicality - I really don't have a strong opinion about what it is and isn't topical and think it is up to you to explain to me why a particular aff makes the topic worse or better. I tend to have a pretty low standard of what it means to be reasonably topical.

Theory - I generally think conditionality is good. Other than that I really don't care what you do just be able to defend your arguments.

Finally, as I becoming older and more grumpy I am getting increasingly annoyed about stealing prep and random down time in between speeches. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to use the restroom, just be respectful of my time. I will reward time efficiency between speeches with better speakers points. Especially if you can send the email before prep time is over. These are my preferences

--If a speaker marks the speech document and the other team wants the marked document that should happen after CX during prep time. If the other team cannot wait until after CX then they can take prep time to get the cards

--If a speak reads a cards that were not in the speech document and needs to send them out the speaker will take prep time before CX to send out the necessary evidence.

--CX ends when the timer is over. Finish your sentence quickly or take prep time to continue CX

I would like to be on the email chain – misty.tippets9@gmail.com

Dartmouth, Interlake. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228 at gmail dot com

College people, add: debatedocs at googlegroups dot com

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

Key Things to Know

I will flow and vote based on the things you said. Negs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality and judge kick are good. Affs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

I do a lot of work during tournaments and will be tired on their last few days. I have found that this makes it harder for me to focus. To counteract this, I have gone back to flowing on paper, which I have found helps me process the debate as it is happening. You will benefit if you make my paper flowing life easier (give me time to flip the page, warn me if you're going to make an abnormally large number of arguments about part of the flow, tell me to make an overview or framework page if I need one, etc.).

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

T/L

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. More broadly, all else being equal, I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force if possible.

Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.

This procedure typically means (for example):

1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.

2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would decide every question in the debate. However, shrinking decision times make this impractical. Minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them through debating.

DAs

The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.

CPs

If no one says anything I will assume I can judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo. Nothing but conditionality is a voting issue. Pretty neg on most theory, except fiating out of your own straight turned offense.

Competition is usually more impactful than theory. Theory arguments that logically presume you have won a competition argument ("CPs that steal the aff are a voting issue" assumes you have demonstrated that the CP has stolen the aff, which is a competition argument. "CPs that are not functionally and textually competitive are a voting issue"... come on, what are we doing here) are a waste of time. Just win the competition argument.

Functional competition + explaining what your plan does + definitions + reasons to prefer your definitions >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches. "Should =/= immediate" plus a cr

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

T

I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I do not think the intrinsic value of being "factually correct" about your T argument is very high.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.

Ks / Planless Affs

Good for specific Ks on the neg, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K affs, death good = L.

If your K is secretly a DA, refer to the DA section. If your K is not a DA then yes, you need framework and you need an alternative. Whatever issue your framework says should determine the round should be what your link, impact, and alt are about.

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.

I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessively demanding curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

Asking for a 30 will yield a 25.

Ethics and Conduct

If the tabroom tells me to do something, it is not up for debate. I will do that thing. The rest is what I will do if left to my own devices.

Evidence ethics (out of context? straw-person? lied about quals? cut in middle of paragraph?) should be debated out like any other theory argument. Alternative remedies short of an automatic loss could be more responsive or proportional to the harm: scratching the argument AND evidence, scratching only the evidence and treating the argument as if it is made analytically, assuming an author is absolutely unqualified, requiring the team to produce the full text of articles in question, requiring the violating team to establish a paper trail authenticating other important evidence and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, requiring a team to produce the full text of every article in the debate and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, reducing speaker points, informing the team's coaches after the fact. They MAY be a reason to reject the team, but I will not treat them as such by default.

Clipping - claiming you read words from evidence that you did not read - is different, and a voting issue. It is a form of dishonesty that irreparably distorts teams' speech times, which affects every other issue in the debate, and which opponents are uniquely poorly positioned to police. If you are inexperienced or appear to have clipped by mistake, I will be lenient. Otherwise, it is non-negotiable.

Thoughts on stopping the debate early:

1. This is an exceptional measure to be avoided if possible.

2. Once the debate stops because of an ethics challenge, my first step is to consult the tabroom and do whatever they say.

3. Unless expressly instructed otherwise by the tabroom, the debate will not resume once stopped. The winner and loser will be determined solely by the ethics challenge.

4. An accusing team can stop the debate at any time except during a speech or a cross-ex. They win if they are correct, present compelling evidence that they are correct, and I agree that the conduct justifies a penalty loss. The winner will receive 28.5 and 28.6. Losers who have personally committed an ethics violation receive the lowest points allowed. Losers who have not personally committed an ethics violation - either due to an unsuccessful accusation, or because the partner committed the violation - receive a 27 and 27.1.

5. During the dispute, both teams must engage in good faith. The accusing team must submit evidence of their accusation as soon as possible. I will not consider evidence submitted within 20 minutes of decision time. Any filibustering or other unreasonable behavior by the accusing team will result in a win for the accused.

6. An accused team can stop the debate, even if the accusing team does not wish to do so, if the accusation concerns the fundamental academic integrity of the accused. This is a very high bar.

7. An accusing team may ask me if I believe certain conduct justifies a penalty loss without stopping the debate. I will take judge prep to answer. This answer is not an invitation to negotiate and obviously doesn't bind the tabroom.

8. I will proactively end the debate for clipping. I will not do this for other evidence ethics or academic integrity issues.

9. Basically none of this applies to novice or JV, where I will resolve the dispute as quickly and narrowly as possible with the aim of maximizing the number of speeches that can happen.

Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. You should give this line a wide berth.